how many month we have to live in 15 years old house i can save capital gain that is my principal residence

Powered by

If i jointly own a property with my spouse, but have another property, can i claim that 2nd property as my primary residence, and if so, how long can i do so before not being dinged with capital gains tax? many thanks to the americans who answered, but this is question is for a canadian context.

It appears as if you might have a tax problem. You might want to check with your tax consultant. Spouses normally reside in the same residence,so if one is residing in one place and another in one other you might have a few problems or raise a few eyebrows. This is normal especially if the houses are close to each other. There are year requirements and under IRS there might be others that on this forum might not be known I hope this has been of some use to you, good luck. "FIGHT ON

Powered by

My wife and i purchased a house in 2003 whilst working as a housemaster (and wife) in a boarding school. it has been necessary to live in school accomodation in order to discharge our duties, and therefore we rented out our house. it has gained about £50,000 in value over the past few years,and although we have never lived in the house we would now like to sell it. i believe that there are special dispensations relating to capital gains tax if you have to live in accomodation in order to do your job(i.e. a vicar for example) and therefore are unable to live in your own house. under these circumstances the property is treated as your principle residence. is this true? and, 1. does this apply to housemasters? 2.are we able to claim the house as our principle private residence even if we have not lived in it? 3. if not then how long would i have to live in it to avoid paying capital gains tax? any insights into yhis problem would be very gratefully received. thank you.

If you have been living in job related accommodation, then the sale of the property would not attract CGT, even if you never lived in it. You simply would not declare the sale. Your employer would have to be ready to confirm that you were required to live on school premises should HMRC ever raise an enquiry into this aspect of your tax return.

Powered by

My mother is interested in signing a quitclaim deed over to me. my wife and i have been living in my childhood house for over two years. my mother has her own home in a different city and both properties are paid off and mortgage free and located in california. i have two siblings (an older brother and a younger sister), my brother has told me several times that he has no interest (financial or otherwise) in the childhood home property. however, my sister i can say otherwise – she has an interest in everything. my mother is at the age where she lives on a fixed income and the taxes and insurance are killing her where we live, on top of where she lives. we pay rent to my mother each month to live here, and for her to supplement her income with. we want to set up the quitclaim so that we continue to pay her the monthly rent, until the day she dies or if the state steps in if she were incapacitated. we offered to pay the home insurance and the property taxes, to help us and mom. i want to know what will protect my wife and i, in the event when the time comes that my mother passes away, and my sister (who is on the will – it is power of attorney in the trust) would basically evict us and have us out on the street in a heartbeat – this is no joke. i know she would sell the house and get her part of it and if i were to die, then my wife would be out in a heartbeat too – my sister never liked my wife from the day of our wedding. it has been years for my wife and my mother to talk, due to my sister – my wife loves my mom and they have become closer since moving into the childhood home. my mother complains about my sister to my wife all the time, but my wife cannot do anything to my sister - well because we all fear her. she is intimidating and a downright bully. . the house needs an extensive amount of work since it was built in the early 1920’s, and this includes bringing many things up to code and some things need to be removed due to age and health hazards. my mom wishes the house to remain with me and my wife (when she talks to my wife she always refers to the house as “your” house, meaning our house.) we badly want to fix the house up and live here for a long time – we have so many ideas and plans for this house – yet, the sister recently has decided she wants to come over here and instruct us how to remodel the home – against, the mother’s wishes – and we live here – who will pay for our costs to move out while all the remodeling is done? once she starts one thing – many more will come too. i know my sister. my sister wiped out my mom’s account on the remodeling for the home she currently lives in now, and my mom had to borrow $3000 from my sister – now my sister feels she is part owner of that house and my mother is very down about this fact – so we want to help her pay back my sister to get her off my mother’s back. my sister has her own home, and so does my brother – however, my wife and i don’t have the same income or tax bracket as my siblings and this is why we live in the childhood home and try to help out mom as best as can. sorry for the long ramble...just want to state my case: here is the million dollar question...how binding is a quit-deed and do i have to worry about capital gain or my siblings running this through the court system to get their part? if you got this far...thank you.

Do NOT quitclaim this. Gift tax rules will trip you up. Do this the simple way. 1. BUY the house. Then it's yours and your sister can't meddle.... 2. Have your mom owner finance it. (The interest rate could be 5%.) 3. Instead of rent, you pay her interest an principal. You get the interest and property taxes as a deduction on YOUR taxes. 4. Do this before you've lived in the house 3 years--as she only has a 2 of 5 year window to still claim the $250,000 exclusion on any capital gain . She will have to declare the interest income, any capital gain above $250,000, but not the principal as income. 5. Talk her into getting a will--the will can state that the remaining part of the loan is cancelled at her death or must be your part of your inheritance even if you end up with more "money."

Powered by

Please could anybody tell me if my ex husband will have to pay capital gains tax when i buy out his interest in the matrimonial home? he wants £5,000 from me as he says he will have to pay that amount. i think it's just a scam on his part and that he won't have to pay any cgt. when we split up 12 years ago he bought a buy to let property but he didn't live there.....just his tenants. he lived with his auntie. he lived in the matrimonial home (his sole residence) for 16 years. however, recently (i'm not sure when)....in the last 2-3 years he has got rid of his tenants and has moved into his buy to let property and is also using it as a business property and is using one of the bedrooms for his office. would the 3 year rule count when he lived in the matrimonial home.......and therefore exempt him from cgt? also, how could i find out how long ago he moved into his buy to let house? would the council tell me or would they claim data protection?

Capital gains tax is only paid when you sell a property, and then it must be over an amount laid down by the Government. As your husband is only selling part of the house and the other is owned by you then he will not be liable for CGT. If you are still married then he may be entitled to half the matrimonial home, and you could be entitled to half of his property, it does not matter when he acquired it, if you are, or were married at the time of acquisition then could be entitled to half. You would have to seek legal advice about this,

Powered by

The man of the highest training and not the man of the heaviest fist who gains the highest reward. it is impossible that the man with capital and the man without capital should be equal. to affirm that they are equal would be to say that a man who has no tool can get as much food out of the ground as the man who has a spade or a plough; or that the man who has no weapon can defend himself as well against hostile beasts or hostile men as the man who has a weapon. if that were so, none of us would work any more.. for three hundred years now men have been trying to understand and realize liberty. liberty is not the right or chance to do what we choose; there is no such liberty as that on earth. no man can do as he chooses: the autocrat of russia or the king of dahomey has limits to his arbitrary will; the savage in the wilderness, whom some people think free, is the slave of routine, tradition, and superstitious fears; the civilized man must earn his living, or take care of his property, or concede his own will to the rights and claims of his parents, his wife, his children, and all the persons with whom he is connected by the ties and contracts of civilized life it is by strenuous exertion only that each one of us can sustain himself against the destructive forces and the ever recurring needs of life; and the higher the degree to which we seek to carry our development the greater is the proportionate cost of every step. for help in the struggle we can only look back to those in the previous generation who are responsible for our existence. in the competition of life the son of wise and prudent ancestors has immense advantages over the son of vicious and imprudent ones. the man who has capital possesses immeasurable advantages for the struggle of life over him who has none. the more we break down privileges of class, or industry, and establish liberty, the greater will be the inequalities and the more exclusively will the vicious bear the penalties. poverty and misery will exist in society just so long as vice exists in human nature. ex-muslim----------atheist!

" Poverty and misery will exist in society just so long as vice exists in human nature . " . . . And i know of no greater vice than greed it's self . . .

Powered by

The man of the highest training and not the man of the heaviest fist who gains the highest reward. it is impossible that the man with capital and the man without capital should be equal. to affirm that they are equal would be to say that a man who has no tool can get as much food out of the ground as the man who has a spade or a plough; or that the man who has no weapon can defend himself as well against hostile beasts or hostile men as the man who has a weapon. if that were so, none of us would work any more.. for three hundred years now men have been trying to understand and realize liberty. liberty is not the right or chance to do what we choose; there is no such liberty as that on earth. no man can do as he chooses: the autocrat of russia or the king of dahomey has limits to his arbitrary will; the savage in the wilderness, whom some people think free, is the slave of routine, tradition, and superstitious fears; the civilized man must earn his living, or take care of his property, or concede his own will to the rights and claims of his parents, his wife, his children, and all the persons with whom he is connected by the ties and contracts of civilized life it is by strenuous exertion only that each one of us can sustain himself against the destructive forces and the ever recurring needs of life; and the higher the degree to which we seek to carry our development the greater is the proportionate cost of every step. for help in the struggle we can only look back to those in the previous generation who are responsible for our existence. in the competition of life the son of wise and prudent ancestors has immense advantages over the son of vicious and imprudent ones. the man who has capital possesses immeasurable advantages for the struggle of life over him who has none. the more we break down privileges of class, or industry, and establish liberty, the greater will be the inequalities and the more exclusively will the vicious bear the penalties. poverty and misery will exist in society just so long as vice exists in human nature.

When an Irresistable force,collides with an immovable object,compromise,is governing!

Powered by

Women confined and mistreated by hikmet isik question: some people claim that in muslim societies, women are confined to their home and they are oppressed. is there any truth in this claim? what is the position of women in family life and in society according to islamic disciplines? a: islam saved women who were exploited, enslaved, and regarded as second class in the darkness of the pre-islamic age of ignorance from the position of a poor creature and elevated them to a new status as a blessed being. islam freed women from being treated as a tool of pleasure and laid paradise under their feet. if the essential sources of religion and the exemplary lives of the first two generations of muslims who lived after god’s messenger are carefully studied, it will be seen that muslim women were absolutely not confined to their home and they were never oppressed. if those who come up with such claims are not prejudiced and are not making deliberate assertions, then these ideas stem from being ignorant of the essential principles the religion set on this matter and from attributing misconceptions and misapplications—which originate from interference of local customs—throughout history to islam. islam is the only religion which has given women such extensive rights; when we look at the qur’an, practices of the prophet, and the history of islam, except for some abuses caused by individuals’ mistakes, it will be seen that women gained the most exalted status in muslim societies. yes, women have a unique position in islam, which can never be found in other systems. even the societies considered as the most developed in our time are backward on this issue and they cannot be compared with islam. in these modern societies, even though women seem to have a certain freedom, it is rather a freedom to satisfy certain carnal desires, and such a freedom, whether for men or women, cannot be welcomed by primordial human nature and sound intellect; it cannot be acceptable in any divine religion. in recent centuries, the difficulties of making a living brought by bloody wars between states and the pressures of economic needs pushed women into the workforce and out of their homes. after this emergence, women started to earn their own livelihood and to some extent they gained economic freedom as individuals, but in many cases they were not saved from being exploited by capital holders, who wish to benefit particularly from their physical attractions. unfortunately, especially in western societies, women have found superficial and artificial love only at a particular moment of their lives in proportion to their contribution to the market, to material values, and to their serving men’s carnal desires. however, they have mostly lost the respect and love they previously experienced in social life as daughters, sisters, wives, mothers, and grandmothers, and this can never be replaced by anything else. in the long run, under the guise of freedom this time, they got to be exploited on and on with modern techniques (!), they were deprived of most inalienable rights, and become a victim of abuse equivalent of the dark ages. as a reaction to all the injustice done to women (such as their lack of civil and property rights and the absence of justice toward women in family law) a movement to claim women’s rights emerged, particularly in the west. even though this movement is considered an awakening of women, it occurred as a reaction and was doomed to imbalance like all other reactionary movements and ended up in extremism. although the starting point was to defend women, in time it deviated from the original aim to the degree of being full of hatred towards men and to feeling a grudge against them. the movement named feminism, which was born from the idea of protecting women and providing them with rights equal to those of men, has only left behind longing, sorrow, and wreckage as a movement of discontentment. nevertheless, the representatives of feminism, which now has different varieties, have pursued very different demands and the movement has frequently deviated from protecting the rights of women to the excess of trying to establish their dominance. two bodies, one soul god has created woman as a partner to man, not as anything else. in this respect, he cannot be without her and she cannot be without him. according to muhammed lutfi effendi, the sufi scholar and poet (d. 1956), even though adam was in paradise, he lived in sorrow during the time when he was without eve. had eve been created first, then at that time she would have lived in sorrow without adam, since they could not do without one another with respect to their creation. they were like two bodies and a single soul and represented the two different faces of one truth. god has created women and men in relation to each other as he created the electron in relation to the proton, the negative pole in relation to the positive one, the female seed in relation to th

You're absolutely right.