Do you want to pay for the Sub-Prime freeze?

[Hamlet]

Typically they still end up losing a fair amount of their own money. And they lose their home. I'm not a softy, but taxing them on this "gain" really seems like kicking people when they're down.

Take the couple I bought my house from. They had taken money out of the house to finance a business they bought. The business was not as good as they had been led to believe by the sellers (shocking, I know). They had let some maintenance issues pile up on the house, and ended up owing more than it was worth.

The bank picked a number that they were willing to accept to settle the debt, and they put it on the market for that. I came along, foolishly decided that it was a good deal, and bought it

The bank takes a small write-off instead of going through the foreclosure process, the couple loses everything they have but avoid the black mark of foreclosure. This was not a happy day for them and their two kids. I felt bad for them, even though they had made several bad decisions to get to that point.

There is no good reason to pile a tax liability on top of them. All that tax liability does is create another incentive to just default entirely. Why help the bank work out a short sale if you are actually going to be worse off that you would be just defaulting?

This is a good rule change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny Well, they sort of did get a "gain". They got pardoned for the loss they experienced while taking on a financial risk. Perhaps they were screwed over by professionals that they trusted to have at least a little of their best interest at heart. But if thats the metric, I'd like to apply to have a few hundred thousand in investment losses handed back to me!

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet Typically they still end up losing a fair amount of their own money. And they lose their home. I'm not a softy, but taxing them on this "gain" really seems like kicking people when they're down. Take the couple I bought my house from. They had taken money out of the house to finance a business they bought. The business was not as good as they had been led to believe by the sellers (shocking, I know). They had let some maintenance issues pile up on the house, and ended up owing more than it was worth. The bank picked a number that they were willing to accept to settle the debt, and they put it on the market for that. I came along, foolishly decided that it was a good deal, and bought it The bank takes a small write-off instead of going through the foreclosure process, the couple loses everything they have but avoid the black mark of foreclosure. This was not a happy day for them and their two kids. I felt bad for them, even though they had made several bad decisions to get to that point. There is no good reason to pile a tax liability on top of them. All that tax liability does is create another incentive to just default entirely. Why help the bank work out a short sale if you are actually going to be worse off that you would be just defaulting? This is a good rule change.

You seem to think that if they just default they would not get a forgiveness of debt gain... they would...

And... this 'gain' is real.. it is not fake... they only have to pay the taxes on the gain so they are ahead...

Let's give an example... they bought a house for $200,000. They owe $190,000 but the house drops all the way to $100,000. If they sold, they would have to cough up $90,000 cash to sell the house. If they had a repo and it was sold for $100,000 then they did not have to pay the $90,000 in cash so they really had a gain.. and paying the taxes at 25% or so means that they only are out about $23K. Which is better for the homeowner?

[Robert the Red]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Let's give an example... they bought a house for $200,000. They owe $190,000 but the house drops all the way to $100,000. If they sold, they would have to cough up $90,000 cash to sell the house. If they had a repo and it was sold for $100,000 then they did not have to pay the $90,000 in cash so they really had a gain..

A few such gains and they'll have to commit suicide.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet Take the couple I bought my house from. They had taken money out of the house to finance a business they bought. The business was not as good as they had been led to believe by the sellers (shocking, I know). They had let some maintenance issues pile up on the house, and ended up owing more than it was worth. [snip] This was not a happy day for them and their two kids. I felt bad for them, even though they had made several bad decisions to get to that point.

These are the critical points that stand out in my mind.

1. Took money out of their house to buy a business, rather than save the money needed to buy the business (or paid part or all of the purchase price of the business out of the profits of the business).

2. Didn't do their due diligence on the business to ensure its profitability (if it was a profitable business, the owners might have been willing to let them buy it using future profits).

3. Didn't have an emergency or maintenance fund to keep their house from falling into disrepair.

4. Didn't have an emergency fund that would allow them to stay in their house and ride out tough spells in the business.

I'm a firm believer in fiscal responsibility and sound decision-making. If you fail to exercise either, then the repercussions are your own.

[Hamlet]

Maybe we should bring back debtor's prisons, or would cutting off their hands punish them to your satisfaction?

They've made serious financial mistakes, and have been dramatically punished for it.

The bank make a serious financial mistake in loaning money beyond the borrower's ability to repay, and beyond the value of the collatoral. Both parties came to a mutual agreement to resolve the debt.

Why exactly do you think the government should get paid for this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby These are the critical points that stand out in my mind. 1. Took money out of their house to buy a business, rather than save the money needed to buy the business (or paid part or all of the purchase price of the business out of the profits of the business). 2. Didn't do their due diligence on the business to ensure its profitability (if it was a profitable business, the owners might have been willing to let them buy it using future profits). 3. Didn't have an emergency or maintenance fund to keep their house from falling into disrepair. 4. Didn't have an emergency fund that would allow them to stay in their house and ride out tough spells in the business. I'm a firm believer in fiscal responsibility and sound decision-making. If you fail to exercise either, then the repercussions are your own.

[Hamlet]

It is my understanding that there would be no tax liability if they just let the house go into foreclosure. The bank doesn't forgive the loan, they just write it off a uncollectible.

That is why they are changing the rule-- to avoid creating a larger incentive to just mail the keys to the lender and walk away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud You seem to think that if they just default they would not get a forgiveness of debt gain... they would... And... this 'gain' is real.. it is not fake... they only have to pay the taxes on the gain so they are ahead... Let's give an example... they bought a house for $200,000. They owe $190,000 but the house drops all the way to $100,000. If they sold, they would have to cough up $90,000 cash to sell the house. If they had a repo and it was sold for $100,000 then they did not have to pay the $90,000 in cash so they really had a gain.. and paying the taxes at 25% or so means that they only are out about $23K. Which is better for the homeowner?

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet It is my understanding that there would be no tax liability if they just let the house go into foreclosure. The bank doesn't forgive the loan, they just write it off a uncollectible. That is why they are changing the rule-- to avoid creating a larger incentive to just mail the keys to the lender and walk away.

The forgiven loan is considered a gain... if the loan servicing company does not issue a 1099 for it then you are off the hook... unless the IRS audits you as they don't care if you received a 1099 or not.. forgiveness of debt is considered income. No rules changes on this.. it has been this way since I did taxes back in the early '80s.

Wow... found this on my first search....
Forgiven debt could increase your tax bill

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet Maybe we should bring back debtor's prisons, or would cutting off their hands punish them to your satisfaction? They've made serious financial mistakes, and have been dramatically punished for it. The bank make a serious financial mistake in loaning money beyond the borrower's ability to repay, and beyond the value of the collatoral. Both parties came to a mutual agreement to resolve the debt. Why exactly do you think the government should get paid for this?

I am sure Jay can speak for himself... but I did not see where he said they should go to debtor's prison...

He said if you make bad decision you should pay...

"I'm a firm believer in fiscal responsibility and sound decision-making. If you fail to exercise either, then the repercussions are your own."

Not once mentioning prison, or whipping them with a cane or a whip .... just that someone who does some things wrong financially should pay a price.. and they did..

[clifp]

One of the things that strikes me as unfair is the difference between how investors/employee of dot com world were treated the real estate investors.

In particular plenty of new economy employees got screwed with the AMT treatment of their stock options and Congress did nothing to help them until this year, and then the benefits is very minor for those hit hardest compared to Real Esate speculators.

For those of you not familiar what happened in 2000, let me give an example.

In Jan 1998, Webmaster Wayne a couple of years out of engineering school, joins a FindIt.com, a really promising internet search engine company. In 1999 Findit goes public and the stock takes off. In Jan 2000 Wayne exercise his 10,000 incentive stock option that he got for $3/share. The stock is trading for $53. He finds that between a Fed taxes of 39% and CA state taxes of 9% that he'd owe almost $240,000 tax on his $500,000 gain. His coworker tells him that if he waits for one year he can take advantage of the long-term capital gains and cut his tax bill in almost half.
By Sept 2000 findit.com stock is down to $10 and Wayne is out of a job.
In Jan 2001 He sees articles about this AMT tax and reluctantly decides to see a CPA for his 2000 tax. He is floored when the CPA tells him he owes $130,000 in AMT taxes. I don't have $130,000, Findit is only worth $4/share can I just give it to the IRS. Nope won't work says the CPA, Waynes ask "How about declaring bankruptcy", sorry the IRS doesn't care. The CPA well the good news is you now have an AMT credit so you won't pay AMT tax in the future in about 30-40 years you'll get your $130,000 back.

He finds several people including some congressman are petition Congress and the IRS for relief. But their pleas fall on deaf ears until 2006, when Congress cut the credit recovering time from 40 years to about 10.
Now the prevailing view after the dot com bubble burst, was that A. these kids were just lucky and didn't deserve the money, and B. they took a calculated risk to hold on to there stock to get the lower LTCG rate. They lost the bet and they have to suffer the consequences.

Personally, I can see good arguments on all side why the laws should or should not be changed. What I can't see is why the Waynes in 2000 should be treated differently, than the folks who refinanced their house in 2007. In many cases these folks used the money for vacations and Lexus and now that the house is worth $100K less the loan, they walk away.

That money is a gift and they should owe taxes on it. I as a shareholder of many banks in effect gave them the money, and I'll be deducting the loss on my taxes. They should pay income tax on their gift.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp One of the things that strikes me as unfair is the difference between how investors/employee of dot com world were treated the real estate investors. In particular plenty of new economy employees got screwed with the AMT treatment of their stock options and Congress did nothing to help them until this year, and then the benefits is very minor for those hit hardest compared to Real Esate speculators. For those of you not familiar what happened in 2000, let me give an example. In Jan 1998, Webmaster Wayne a couple of years out of engineering school, joins a FindIt.com, a really promising internet search engine company. In 1999 Findit goes public and the stock takes off. In Jan 2000 Wayne exercise his 10,000 incentive stock option that he got for $3/share. The stock is trading for $53. He finds that between a Fed taxes of 39% and CA state taxes of 9% that he'd owe almost $240,000 tax on his $500,000 gain. His coworker tells him that if he waits for one year he can take advantage of the long-term capital gains and cut his tax bill in almost half. By Sept 2000 findit.com stock is down to $10 and Wayne is out of a job. In Jan 2001 He sees articles about this AMT tax and reluctantly decides to see a CPA for his 2000 tax. He is floored when the CPA tells him he owes $130,000 in AMT taxes. I don't have $130,000, Findit is only worth $4/share can I just give it to the IRS. Nope won't work says the CPA, Waynes ask "How about declaring bankruptcy", sorry the IRS doesn't care. The CPA well the good news is you now have an AMT credit so you won't pay AMT tax in the future in about 30-40 years you'll get your $130,000 back. He finds several people including some congressman are petition Congress and the IRS for relief. But their pleas fall on deaf ears until 2006, when Congress cut the credit recovering time from 40 years to about 10. Now the prevailing view after the dot com bubble burst, was that A. these kids were just lucky and didn't deserve the money, and B. they took a calculated risk to hold on to there stock to get the lower LTCG rate. They lost the bet and they have to suffer the consequences. Personally, I can see good arguments on all side why the laws should or should not be changed. What I can't see is why the Waynes in 2000 should be treated differently, than the folks who refinanced their house in 2007. In many cases these folks used the money for vacations and Lexus and now that the house is worth $100K less the loan, they walk away. That money is a gift and they should owe taxes on it. I as a shareholder of many banks in effect gave them the money, and I'll be deducting the loss on my taxes. They should pay income tax on their gift.

Wow!! I did not fully realize the plight of the "Webmaster Wayne"s of the world in the dot-com crash wrt the AMT. That must have been awful. I agree - - there are some parallels with the situation now.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Yep, I know a bunch of people from my old company that got pretty well poled by the AMT doing exactly what Clif talked about. Exercised options in the 60's and 70's, then had the stock price drop below 12. One guy I know pretty well ended up owning a quarter million in AMT, had to sell the stock and his house to pay it, then his wife divorced him over it. Shortly thereafter he declared bankruptcy.

I havent seen him since late last year, but his life pretty much sucked and was going to continue sucking for a long time.

But there was no fallout to draw attention of the lawmakers. No empty houses sitting around, no dropping real estate values to make the voters unhappy, and most important no large financial institutions holding huge chunks of bad debt.

Plus nobody feels sorry for some cocky young white collar former stock millionaires.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny Plus nobody feels sorry for some cocky young white collar former stock millionaires.

That's cuz, in this case, there're dumb as stumps. They allowed the tail to wag the dog by holding highly appreciated stock to try to avoid taxes. I know many were engineers and other tech types without much business sense. Still, to have a mountain of money in their hands and lose it all watching the stock tumble into the dust.........

Edited to add: To be evenhanded, I don't feel sorry for the folks who can't pay their subprime mortgages either........

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Exercising stock options in a highly profitable company that's gone up steadily for 15 years and is considered undervalued might be perceived as smart compared to buying a house thats doubled in value over the last 2 years (for no apparent reason) using an adjustable mortgage.

Hmm?

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny Exercising stock options in a highly profitable company that's gone up steadily for 15 years and is considered undervalued might be perceived as smart compared to buying a house thats doubled in value over the last 2 years (for no apparent reason) using an adjustable mortgage.

Totally agree. But what I said was those dumb as a stump folks who exercised and held the stock waiting for the long term cap gains tax instead of selling immediately (or just doing a sell to cover transaction up front) are hard to feel sympathetic for! There they are with a truck full of money, but to avoid short term cap gains tax rates, they put it all at risk and just watch it plummet down and down and down and down ....... What were they thinking?

Exercising wasn't dumb. Exercising and holding the stock was dumb.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Totally agree. But what I said was those dumb as a stump folks who exercised and held the stock waiting for the long term cap gains tax instead of selling immediately (or just doing a sell to cover transaction up front) are hard to feel sympathetic for! There they are with a truck full of money, but to avoid short term cap gains tax rates, they put it all at risk and just watch it plummet down and down and down and down ....... What were they thinking? Exercising wasn't dumb. Exercising and holding the stock was dumb.

Yes in hindsight you are right. However, in the example I gave the stock would have to drop from 53 to 40 to come out financially ahead. More to the point in the late 90s plenty of people were completely ignorant of AMT.
Much like most of the world was completely ignorant of CDO, SIV etc a year ago. After all "AMT was only something rich people had to pay".
Sophisticated strategies like using collar or buying long-term puts aren't something you learn in computer science classes. Even at my and CFB's Megacorp, when you exercised stock options nobody tells you that you almost certainly owe AMT taxes. At a small start up I doubt anybody other than the CFO knew.

In contrast, even the most financial naive person taking a mortgage has to sign a statement in BIG BOLD LETTERS saying everything on my application is true under penalty of perjury, and imagine there is also a highlighted section which says something like "I understand the interest rate on this loan and my payments will increase in the future"

Finally, I'll relate the case of my friends company where he was the VP of Engineering. As is typical with IPO, officers of company are prohibited from selling stock (or derivatives) for a period of 6 months to a year after the IPO. He got hosed by AMT and there was almost nothing he could do.

[youbet]

I find no fault with what you're saying. I'm just not sympathetic with the folks involved. They exercised stock and knew they'd owe tax on the difference between the strike price and the price on the day of exercise. Apparently these were ISO shares (you guys haven't actually said) and the exercisers opted to hold shares, which had recently had a huge run up, for one year to benefit from LTCG rates.......... The shares tumbled.....And there ya go......Trouble in River City.....

It's just my conservatism. I always exercised to cover (even ISO shares), had taxes withheld at the time of exercise and smiled with my smaller, but greatly appreciated, extra compensation.

My outlook is just a personal thing since I've usually had bad luck when I let taxes influence investment decisions, especially timing. My weakness usually isn't holding stock too long to get LTCG rates, but rather waiting to exercise to put the proceeds into the next tax year and having the stock fall by then. Sad.... sad...... sad......

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I'm unsympathetic to anyone who entered into a financial arrangement and had it go south because they screwed up by not asking enough questions and not taking the time to understand the risks.

I was an idiot for seven years for exercising and selling every year and paying the big tax bills. I think I paid for one of the planes that Rewahoo used to fly around. But then I became a genius in one short year...

[clifp]

Yes these were ISO, although before I and CFB left Intel and most large Silicon Valley companies had switched to now qualified options.

Quote:

I find no fault with what you're saying. I'm just not sympathetic with the folks involved. They exercised stock and knew they'd owe tax on the difference between the strike price and the price on the day of exercise.

In my case, I had never heard of AMT before a friend mentioned in about 1996. I found to my shock that not only did I owe AMT for 1996 but also for 1995. Now by the time 2000, rolls around I knew what I was doing, and I got bit moderately badly. In my case no sympathy is needed. However, realistically YouBet, CFB , me and most of the forum member are lot more sophisticated about financial matters than even bright engineers.
A large proportion of the people exercising ISO in that no clue they owed taxes (ISO were always touted as being as being a tax friendly option) if they didn't sell the stock, since nobody told you about the tax consquences.

I don't disagree with you just because Wayne or Mr Subprime was ignorant/stupid/ of the consquence obligates taxpayers to bail him out. In fact, not bailing the folks who got hosed with AMT sets a pretty good precedent for not do so for the home owners.

But as CFB says empty homes and dropping real estate values is big voter issue, bankrupt dot.com folks isn't

[Hamlet]

I had the same sympathy for the dot.com AMT people as I do for the short sale folks. I didn't think that they should have a giant tax liability for what became a non-existent gain.

They paid the price for their foolishness by losing all of the gain in the stock. The government doesn't need to pile on by creating a massive tax bill for them that they now have no ability to pay.

It's like setting up the income tax so that even if you lose your job, you still owe taxes on what you would have earned.

As a side note, the AMT gets my vote for the stupidest tax ever conceived in this country. It doesn't suprise me that many people didn't understand the risk they were taking with their options. I like to think I'm pretty savy, and I don't really understand the AMT. I breath a sigh of relief every time Turbo Tax says that the AMT doesn't get me

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp Yes these were ISO, although before I and CFB left Intel and most large Silicon Valley companies had switched to now qualified options. In my case, I had never heard of AMT before a friend mentioned in about 1996. I found to my shock that not only did I owe AMT for 1996 but also for 1995. Now by the time 2000, rolls around I knew what I was doing, and I got bit moderately badly. In my case no sympathy is needed. However, realistically YouBet, CFB , me and most of the forum member are lot more sophisticated about financial matters than even bright engineers. A large proportion of the people exercising ISO in that no clue they owed taxes (ISO were always touted as being as being a tax friendly option) if they didn't sell the stock, since nobody told you about the tax consquences. I don't disagree with you just because Wayne or Mr Subprime was ignorant/stupid/ of the consquence obligates taxpayers to bail him out. In fact, not bailing the folks who got hosed with AMT sets a pretty good precedent for not do so for the home owners. But as CFB says empty homes and dropping real estate values is big voter issue, bankrupt dot.com folks isn't

[barbarus]

Some might say that politicians are self-aggrandizing toadys just seeking to play off the tenor of popular prejudice to maintain their own power.

Not me, of course.