This is wrong.

Sign up, and you can customize which countdowns you see. Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Jun 20, 2024
10:38:11pm

Jeremy All-American

This is wrong.

You are saying JT equals SP unless the document says otherwise.

Report problem with this ad

Jeremy

Bio page: Jeremy
Joined: Oct 5, 2006
Last login: Jun 29, 2024
Total posts: 9,718 (376 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

Reporting step up basis on rental property from death of spouse. In California.

bdizzle

Jun 19, 3:07pm

It was the full step up when I sold my fathers home in

cougar95

Jun 19, 3:12pm

Had both parents passed at that point or was one still living? If both have died

bdizzle

Jun 19, 3:16pm

If CP, full FMV steup on both deaths.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:18pm

My mom is still alive

cougar95

Jun 19, 3:21pm

It's federal, not state.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:17pm

When the first spouse dies the surviving spouse gets a 1/2 step up.

oohYeah

Jun 19, 3:15pm

This is not true if it is CP.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:18pm

If CP, then full fair market value on the date of the spouse's death

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:16pm

That is is my understanding as well. CA is a community property state so

bdizzle

Jun 19, 3:19pm

All property is either CP or SP regardless of title.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:28pm

Doesn't the title have to indicate community property or community property with

Jun 19, 3:41pm

No, law presumes CP in most cases. But it helps.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:44pm

Are you assuming they bought the property with community property funds?

Jun 19, 3:54pm

RE: Are you assuming they bought the property with community property funds?

Jeremy

Jun 19, 4:14pm

Property was purchased in 1975. Cited law applies to transactions after 1987

dratax

Jun 19, 4:22pm

"Unless the instrument of transfer expressly provides otherwise"

dratax

Jun 19, 4:30pm

2001 CA law: JTWROS= 50% step up and CPWROS=100% step up. JT is not community

dratax

Jun 19, 4:43pm

The property was treated as community property for all intents and

bdizzle

Jun 19, 5:23pm

You seem to have a good understanding of what CA law is right up to the point

dratax

Jun 19, 5:57pm

What document are you referring to? I don't see a document posted besides the

bdizzle

Jun 19, 6:51pm

The document that says the property is held as joint tenants

dratax

Jun 19, 9:18pm

This is wrong.

Jeremy

Jun 20, 10:38pm

I'm just relating what the websites

dratax

Jun 20, 11:49pm

where does it say the law applies to transactions after 1987? It says the

bdizzle

Jun 19, 6:54pm

The parties agreed to treat the property as joint and not community

dratax

Jun 19, 4:25pm

Not really. They paid property taxes on it for almost 50 years

chismoso

Jun 19, 3:18pm

True savings isn't the right word. Although they haven't really paid much

bdizzle

Jun 19, 3:24pm

Not exactly what you think when it’s been taxed off original purchase price.

Jun 19, 5:08pm

<< Deleted >>

BYUMizzou

Jun 19, 3:48pm

Not sure how CA works, but in NV I sold an industrial building for a couple

Gente_Boa

Jun 19, 3:52pm

NV and CA work the same.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 4:14pm

Based on the information provided, 50% step up

dratax

Jun 19, 4:10pm

See the link below from the CA supreme court. The summary says

bdizzle

Jun 19, 7:07pm

I almost stood corrected, then I read the opinion . It says it does not apply to

dratax

Jun 19, 10:28pm

Nice catch! I didn't see that. Maybe because I am hoping the full step up

bdizzle

Jun 19, 11:04pm

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad