The Tax Code offers householders many tax breaks. Chief amongst them is the power to exclude as much as $500k of acquire from the sale of a principal residence (for married taxpayers submitting collectively). Taxpayers looking for this exclusion should meet some primary necessities, set out in §121. Taxpayers who fail the necessities, nonetheless, should still qualify for an exclusion underneath the unexpected circumstances rule in §121(c).
Steven W. Webert and Catherine S. Webert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-32 (Apr. 7, 2022) (Decide Gustafson), teaches a lesson on the operation of the unexpected circumstances rule. There, unexpected circumstances arguably pressured the taxpayers to maneuver out of their dwelling throughout an actual property bust in 2009. Apparently unwilling to promote quick, they rented out the house till the market recovered and finally bought it for a acquire of about $195k in 2015. They tried to exclude the acquire underneath §121, claiming they had been entitled to take action due to the unexpected circumstances rule in §121(c). The IRS thought the declare had no benefit. Curiously, the Tax Court docket didn’t (but) agree. Beats me on why. I discover the rule, and the thriller of why the IRS misplaced its Abstract Judgment movement, under the fold.
Regulation: The Residence Sale Exclusion Historical past
Right here’s a quick historical past of the house sale exclusion. For individuals who need extra, this Congressional Analysis Service Report (CRS RL32978) does a terrific job. For individuals who don’t care, simply skip on down.
The primary tax profit dwelling sale good points got here in 1951 when Congress started permitting taxpayers to keep away from tax on acquire from the sale of a principal residence in the event that they purchased a brand new principal residence of equal or larger worth inside a 12 months from the identical. The thought was that almost all dwelling gross sales had been in response to household or employment modifications and so the had been extra “of the character of an involuntary conversion” slightly than a sale for revenue. See the Sen. Rep. 82-781, as quoted within the CRS Report, supra. Permitting deferral would facilitate the sturdy post-WWII motion of labor.
The second tax profit got here in 1964 when Congress created §121 as a one-time exclusion for taxpayers who had used the house as their principal residence in 5 of the prior 8 years earlier than the sale (“the use requirement”). §206 of the Income Act of 1964, P.L. 88-272, 78 Stat. 19. The exclusion was restricted to $20,000, finally rising to $125,000 by 1981 and by then Congress had shortened the use requirement to three of the prior 8 years. The thought behind this profit was just like one of many conventional rationales for capital good points tax charges: that the nominal acquire from dwelling gross sales mirrored easy inflation as a lot or greater than actual appreciation of worth.
Regulation: Present Primary Guidelines
Congress did a serious overhaul of the exclusion in 1997 to create the exclusion as we just about understand it now: single taxpayers might exclude dwelling sale acquire from revenue as much as a cap of $250k and married taxpayers might exclude as much as a cap of $500k. Gone is the requirement to purchase a brand new residence. Gone is the use-once-in-a-lifetime restriction. As an alternative, present §121 combines the options of the previous rollover and the previous one-time exclusion by operation of three primary guidelines: (1) an possession requirement; (2) a use requirement; and (3) an anti-flipping limitation. Let’s take a fast take a look at every.
(1) Possession requirement. That is probably the most easy. Look again 5 years from the date bought. The taxpayer should have owned the property for at the very least two of these 5 years. §121(a). Married taxpayers can get the fundamental $250,000 exclusion even when just one partner meets each assessments. They get the $500,000 exclusion if both partner meets that 2-in-5 possession requirement, so so long as each meet the use requirement. §121(b)(2)(A), (B).
(2) Use requirement. That is extra advanced. Typically, a taxpayer should have used the property as their principal residence for a interval aggregating two years or extra of the five-year look-back interval. What makes this advanced is when the taxpayer has a couple of residence, or has common momentary absences, or turns into bodily or mentally incapable of self-care and has to go to a hospital, nursing dwelling, or comparable facility. Generally these absences don’t depend towards the use requirement and typically they do. See e.g. Guinan v. U.S., No. CV 02-0261-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. Apr. 9, 2003) (TPs who had owned and used three properties couldn’t set up that the one they bought was their principal residence). As Treas. Reg. 1.121-2(b)(2) places it: “whether or not property is utilized by the taxpayer because the taxpayer’s principal residence relies upon upon all of the details and circumstances.” Oh pleasure.
(3) Anti-flipping limitation. Taxpayers might use the part 121 exclusion as many occasions as they need topic solely to an anti-flipping restriction in part 121(b)(3) that limits the exclusion to just one sale each two years. So sure, you can purchase a home, transfer in, repair it up and promote it, however solely as soon as each two years.
Regulation: The Unexpected Circumstances Rule
Generally, life throws a curveball. Congress acknowledged that taxpayers typically need to promote their principal residence earlier than their use and possession through the 5 12 months interval earlier than the sale absolutely qualifies them for the §121 exclusion. Sure, that bolded language is essential for immediately’s lesson. When the sale is due to “a change instead of employment, well being, or, to the extent offered in rules, unexpected circumstances.” §121(c)(2)(B), there’s a particular rule that kicks in. It is known as the unexpected circumstances rule. It says that the anti-flipping limitation is not going to apply, and that the relevant cap on exclusion shall be lowered by a ratio, the place the numerator is principally the interval of qualifying use and possession, and the denominator is 2 years.
The fundamental instance I exploit at school is the place unexpected circumstances pressure the taxpayer to promote their dwelling after one 12 months of use and possession through the 5 12 months interval earlier than the sale. That creates a ratio of 1/2, or one-half, or 50% should you like. If the taxpayer is single, which means the relevant cap of $250,000 will get lowered to a cap of $125,000. Meaning the taxpayer can exclude as much as $125,000 of acquire.
By virtually any measure, the statute may be very beneficiant. In line with this Report of median dwelling gross sales by Nationwide Affiliation of Realtors, that instance of with the ability to exclude $125,000 after a single 12 months of possession would fully cowl virtually each taxpayer besides maybe these in very high-priced markets similar to San Francisco the place the median dwelling costs rose from $1.1 million and 2020 to $1.3 million in 2021. Even there, nonetheless, it’s unlikely a taxpayer have the ability to generate a acquire if the taxpayer incurred regular transaction prices.
The rules much more beneficiant than the statute! They broadly outline unexpected circumstances as these occasions “that the taxpayer couldn’t moderately have anticipated earlier than buying and occupying the residence.” Treas. Reg. 1.121-3(e)(1). The regulation offers one instance as being a number of births from the identical being pregnant, the place H and W purchase a two-bedroom condominium that they use as their principal residence and one 12 months later W offers start to twins. H and W promote their condominium to purchase a bigger dwelling. The regulation says H and W are entitled to say a lowered most exclusion underneath part 121(c)(2).
And the IRS is much more beneficiant than the rules! For instance, In PLR 200665204 single taxpayers A and B purchased a home collectively and moved in. Seven months later taxpayer A found she was pregnant. Who may have guessed that would occur? They break up up and needed to promote the home. The IRS stated that the being pregnant was an unexpected circumstance and certified them to say a lowered most exclusion underneath the subsection (c) components. The PLR is silent on whether or not there have been particular details right here on why the being pregnant couldn’t moderately have been anticipated so we’re left to scratch our heads.
However regardless of how generously one stretches the time period “unexpected circumstances,” §121(c) solely applies to gross sales the place the taxpayer meets some, however not all, of the possession and use necessities within the 5 12 months interval earlier than the sale. Ooooh. Extra daring foreshadowing! That’s as a result of the subsection creates a ratio and that ratio then determines how a lot of the cap you’ve gotten left. That’s, you multiply the ratio by the relevant cap to find out the modified cap quantity. Fairly primary math.
Return to the fundamental instance. If as an alternative of promoting the home after one 12 months, the taxpayer as an alternative rents out the house for the following six years after which sells it, the taxpayer could have zero within the numerator. That’s as a result of there is no such thing as a use of the property as a principal residence within the 5 12 months interval earlier than the sale. The taxpayer has now used the home as a principal residence for zero years of the 5 12 months interval earlier than the sale. Meaning the ratio is zero. Meaning the statutory cap (whether or not the $250k or $500k cap) can be zero as a result of, as all of us ought to have realized earlier than fifth grade, any quantity multiplied by zero is….zero.
Put one other manner, the belief underlying the unexpected circumstances rule is that the taxpayer could have met some portion of the possession requirement and use requirement within the 5 12 months interval earlier than the sale.
Right now’s case illustrates that assumption underlying the unexpected circumstances rule. Let’s have a look.
Details
Mr. and Ms. Webert married in 2004. In 2005 Ms. Webert purchased a house on Mercer Island, an upscale enclave simply east of Seattle, WA which the couple made their principal residence. Though not within the opinion, it seems they bought the house for $794,000, in line with this Zillow web page (assuming I discovered the proper home). Mr. Webert continued to personal a house in close by Sammamish, WA. In some unspecified time in the future in 2005—whether or not earlier than or after shopping for the house—Ms. Webert was identified with most cancers and within the subsequent years she continued to have “quite a few accumulating and cascading well being issues, which required a number of therapies and [created] in depth medical payments.” Op. at 3.
By 2009 the Mercer Island home had grew to become too costly to dwell in. The Weberts moved over to the Sammamish WA home and tried to promote the Mercer Island home. Nevertheless, as Ms. Webert testified at trial: “The monetary and housing markets crashed in 2008 and hit the Seattle space significantly laborious, so the home in Mercer Island wouldn’t promote….” As an alternative, “it lastly bought rented out in sheer desperation, as a result of [Mr. Webert] was not in a position to pay the funds…” Op. at 3.
The Weberts rented out the Mercer Island home for about six years—all the time claiming zero or de minimis private use days on their Schedule E’s for 2010-2015. They lastly bought it as soon as the market recovered, in 2015, for $1.14 million. That was fairly near the median gross sales worth of properties that 12 months. In line with this Mercer Island actual property weblog publish from January 2016, “Mercer Island continues on a 3 12 months development of double-digit appreciation with the median sale worth of single household properties ($1,199,500) rising by 10.6%.” Decide Gustafson sums it up: “Ms. Webert owned the property for roughly 11 years (2005–15), of which she used it as her principal residence for five years (2005–09) and used it as rental property for six years (2010–15).” Op. at 4.
Curiously, they reported a acquire of solely about $195k. So possibly I’m incorrect that they purchased the home for $794k. Or possibly they made in depth renovations to it. Or possibly they simply mis-reported the acquire. I might suppose six years of depreciation would additionally actually enhance the acquire to be reported on the sale. However what do I do know?
Much more curiously, on their 2015 return, the Weberts excluded the $195k acquire from revenue. On audit, they claimed that they had correctly excluded the acquire underneath §121. The IRS stated no manner. And their return apparently had different issues. The IRS despatched out an NOD proposing to evaluate greater than $231k in deficiencies for 2015.
The Weberts petitioned Tax Court docket and, once more, the IRS stated no manner on the §121 challenge, transferring for partial abstract judgment on simply the query of whether or not they had been entitled to exclude the $195k from revenue underneath §121.
Now, right here’s the place it will get fascinating. The Weberts had divorced the 12 months after they bought the home. So by the point the matter bought to Tax Court docket, they every put in separate appearances. Ms. Webert was represented by counsel, who fairly rightly was keen to concede the §121 challenge. She had good tax attorneys. However Mr. Webert, continuing professional se, was not keen to concede the problem. He claimed that the unexpected circumstances rule allowed enabled them to say the §121 exclusion.
Mr. Webert has a really confused understanding of the unexpected circumstances rule and I feel it confused Decide Gustafson, too. It certain as heck confused me! It made me return and actually learn §121(c) verrrrrry rigorously. After doing that, I feel we do have a extremely good lesson right here.
Lesson: Unexpected Circumstance Rule Is No Assist After TPs Stop To Qualify For §121 Exclusion
Keep in mind, Decide Gustafson is ruling on a movement by the IRS for partial abstract judgment. The fundamental thought there’s {that a} court docket can challenge a ruling on a problem when the problem is solely a matter of legislation and all of the details are agreed upon. If, nonetheless, there’s a respectable dispute about some reality that will have an effect on the authorized evaluation—what we name a “materials reality”—then a court docket is not going to grant abstract judgment till it resolves that factual dispute. See Tax Court docket Rule 121.
It seems that Mr. Webert needed to argue that there was a respectable dispute about whether or not Ms. Webert’s diseases in 2005 and later years constituted an unexpected circumstance. Positive. Possibly there’s. However it’s not clear why that makes any distinction. It is not a fabric reality.
Decide Gustafson appears to suppose the dispute does make a distinction. He notes that if the “main motive” for a sale is due to an unexpected circumstance, then §121(c) will apply. He then writes: “it seems that the well being issues might have been the first motive for the makes an attempt to promote which started in 2009 and didn’t succeed till 2015. Consequently, we discover a real dispute on that factual challenge, and we assume that well being causes had been the first motive for the sale.” Op. at 11.
I am misplaced. I am confused. I fail to spot how the dispute makes any distinction. It is so not materials. When the home bought in 2015, Ms. Webert had not used it as her principal residence throughout the whole 5-year lookback interval. Zero. Zilch. Nada. So even should you assume her well being issues had been the first explanation for transferring out in 2009, thus triggering the §121(c) unexpected circumstances rule, a correct software of the rule ends in a zero exclusion quantity. Do not forget that primary math?
I see two doable causes for confusion right here.
First, there is perhaps a confusion in regards to the “non-qualified use” rule. That’s, §121(b)(5) gives that any quantities of acquire attributable to “durations of non-qualified use” will not be excluded. The thought right here is in line with the Congressional intent to offer this exclusion to taxpayers whose acquire is basically incidental to the explanation for them having purchased and used the home being bought. Thus, when a long-time landlord strikes again right into a rental for 2 years after which sells it, the ensuing acquire is at the very least partially because of the profit-seeking motive that led to the rental use. Sudden and/or quick absences, nonetheless, don’t depend as non-qualified use. So it appears Mr. Webert needed to argue that occurred right here.
The non-qualified use guidelines merely don’t apply, nonetheless, to the time interval after certified use ceases. Congress acknowledged that typically taxpayers have bother promoting their dwelling and need to hire it out for a time period after they transfer out. That’s the reason §121(b)(5)(C)(i) says that non-qualified use doesn’t embody any time after a taxpayer strikes out of the home and ceases to make use of it as a principal residence. Discover that this offers taxpayers a brief 3-year interval wherein to develop into landlords, take the rents, trip the appreciation for an even bigger acquire and nonetheless get the §121 exclusion.
As soon as the Weberts left the Mercer Island dwelling in 2009, they by no means once more used it as their principal residence. Thus, none of their rental interval is “non-qualified” use. So they do not want any of the particular guidelines about when non-qualified use shall be excused. However, once more, since they didn’t use their (former) dwelling as a principal residence for any of the 5 years earlier than the sale, it doesn’t matter. They wanted to have bought it inside 5 years. They didn’t.
Second, a confusion may come up right here in methods to apply the unexpected circumstances rule. That’s, one may learn the statute to imply that you simply apply §121(c) through the use of the ratio to find out the quantity by which to scale back the $250k/$500k cap. In that case, then zero occasions $250/$500 is zero which implies you scale back the relevant cap by….zero! No discount!
However a cautious studying of §121(c), plus slightly commonsense, shortly corrects that confusion. As to the cautious studying, the statute says “the greenback limitation … shall be equal to….” It does not say “the greenback limitation … shall be lowered by ….” So, once more, zero occasions $250/$500 is zero. If zero is your cap, then you definitely ain’t bought no exclusion.
As to the commonsense, effectively, come on: Mr. Webert’s studying of §121(c) as nonetheless permitting the most exclusion for gross sales outdoors the 5-year lookback interval simply because the first motive for transferring out lo! these a few years earlier than was unexpected on the time of the unique buy results in absurdities. Given the beneficiant interpretation of “unexpected circumstance” within the statute, regulation, and IRS software, taxpayers may simply convert their properties to rental properties and exclude all post-occupancy appreciation as much as the utmost statutory cap regardless of what number of years they maintain the property for rental. And it could blow a gap within the non-qualified use rule. Savvy taxpayers would transfer right into a home, then after two years transfer out when an acceptable “unexpected circumstance” happens after which hire, dealing with no limitation under the statutory cap for exclusion. Lastly, it punishes the the poor schlubs who truly promote their properties after being pressured to maneuver by treating them worse (decreasing the cap) than these extra lucky taxpayers who elect to hire out perpetually (escaping any discount within the cap). That is bizarre.
Positive, the Weberts might have been in a tough place in 2009. I don’t know. However Ms. Webert’s declare that “the home in Mercer Island wouldn’t promote….” is troublesome to imagine. You’ll be able to all the time promote a home. You could not need to, particularly in case your solely choice is a brief sale. I completely perceive as I clarify within the Coda, under. So The Weberts did the financially sensible factor. They rented out the home till the market recovered. One of many penalties is that they misplaced the §121 exclusion. So what? That left after-tax cash jingling of their checking account as an alternative of them having to take cash out to pay somebody to purchase their home! It was nonetheless the sensible transfer to make. No have to get all greedy-Gus and attempt to exclude the acquire.
Coda: Among the many non-tax classes I train in my tax class is that this one: by no means purchase a one-bedroom condominium. Whereas they’re normally probably the most inexpensive properties, they’re additionally the canaries of the actual property market, being the primary to fall in a downturn. Once I purchased Unit 105 in River Towers (within the Va. suburbs of D.C.) in 1988 for $72,750, it was the height of that actual property increase and a 1-BR was all I may afford. When my spouse and I began our life collectively in 1994 up in Maryland, the actual property market had been busted since, effectively, simply after I purchased the condominium. The very best supply I may generate for the condominium was about $10k under my mortgage steadiness. Nicely, heck, just like the Weberts, I didn’t need to pay somebody to take my condominium! Fortunately, I used to be in a position to hire it for my carrying prices. After we moved to Lubbock in 2001, the condominium bought for $76k, producing a few $18k acquire. I didn’t thoughts the capital good points tax. I used to be grateful I had a acquire on which to pay tax. In line with Redfin, my former unit bought in 2009 for $160,000, apparently simply earlier than that specific market crash. It final bought in 2019 for $168,000. First to fall. Final to rise. By no means purchase a one-bedroom condominium.
Bryan Camp is the George H. Mahon Professor of Regulation at Texas Tech College Faculty of Regulation. He invitations readers to return every week for an additional Lesson From The Tax Court docket.
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2022/04/lesson-from-the-tax-court-the-unforeseen-circumstances-rule-for-121-home-sale-exclusions.html
