Great New Listing with RV Parking, Pool, on 1/4 Acre Lot in a Great Court!!-278 Jami Ct, Livermore, CA $875,000

Great New Listing with RV Parking, Pool, on 1/4 Acre Lot in a Great Court!!-278 Jami Ct, Livermore, CA $875,000

Open Saturday & Sunday 2/25/17  & 2/26/17 1-4PM. Offers Due Tuesday 2-28-17 by Noon.

Visit my web page dedicated to 278 Jami Ct, Livermore, CA showcasing the listing, including a virtual tour and detailed information about the property –




BEST BIDDER HOME SALE- Saturday and Sunday 6/7-6/8 1-5PM ONLY….693 Ridgecrest Circle in Livermore

BEST BIDDER HOME SALE- Saturday and Sunday 6/7-6/8 1-5PM  ONLY….You must view the property in person this weekend in order to place a bid! All initial bids are due by Sunday at 5PM.

This is not a foreclosure or a short sale and it is NOT ON THE MLS. This is just another way to sell a home for top dollar quickly. front showing RV1 front from right see all Best Bidder Sign sample

The Sellers are the original owners who have put a lot of love into this house and its yard and it has been well taken care of. All inspections have already been done for you and they will be available onsite for prospective buyers to review.

Tour this great spacious house with RV parking on over ¼ acre lot with private yards, awesome luxurious pool with waterfall, relaxing front yard with fountain and sitting area, lots of grass and garden areas  with fruit trees and places to relax front and back, mountain views from every top floor bedroom and even the master bath! This home has no rear neighbors and only has a neighboring home on one side and that is a single level house…so this property has tons of privacy!!

If you like the house, review the inspections and disclosures that will be available on site and place a bid. It is an open bidding process so everyone will see all bids that have been placed.

This great property is worth well over $700,000, but minimum opening bid starts at about half of market value—only $375,000! Sunday at 5PM, the initial bidding will be closed and starting at 6PM on Sunday, all bidders will be called to be informed of the highest bid as well as the number of active bidders and to see if they would like to increase their bid price. Calls will continue until highest bid is reached and that will be the offer presented to the seller

Hope to see you there!

back yard patio back yard right grass2 pool grass and patio set pool up close gazebo front side showing roses and fountain area front yard


Great News for People Who Did Short Sales in 2012 and 2013 in California!

Great News for People Who Did Short Sales in 2012 and 2013 in California!

Just got this great letter and had to pass it along!

December 4, 2013

Dear Robin,

The good news just keeps continuing.

As we anticipated, C.A.R. today received a letter from the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB), obtained by the State Board of Equalization, clarifying that California families who have lost their home in a short sale are not subject to state income tax liability on debt forgiveness “phantom income” they never received in a short sale.

Last month, in a letter to California Sen. Barbara Boxer, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recognized that the debt written off in a short sale does not constitute recourse debt under California law, and thus does not create so-called “cancellation of debt” income to the underwater home seller for federal income tax purposes. Following the IRS’s clarification, C.A.R. sought a similar ruling by the California FTB. Now with the FTB’s clarification, underwater home sellers also are assured that they are not subject to state income tax liability, rescuing tens of thousands of distressed home sellers from California tax liability for debt written off by lenders in short sales.

We are pleased with the recent clarifications issued by the IRS and the California Franchise Tax Board, which protect distressed homeowners from debt relief income tax associated with a short sale in California. We would like to thank Sen. Boxer and BOE member George Runner for their leadership in obtaining this guidance from the IRS and FTB. Distressed California homeowners can now avoid foreclosure or bankruptcy and can opt for a short sale instead, without incurring federal and state tax liability, even after the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 expires at the end of this year.


Kevin Brown
2014 President


Enhanced by Zemanta

Should I Short Sale My Underwater Home in the East Bay Area or Tri-Valley of California Now? Most Likely Yes. Do I have to Pay Taxes if I Short Sale My Home? Maybe.

Should I Short Sale My Underwater Home in theEastBayArea or Tri-Valley of California Now or Wait & Short Sale Later? Now is Most Likely Better for you.

Do I have to Pay Taxes if I Short Sale My Home? Maybe.



It it important to know how the different federal and state laws may apply to you and how you can use them in your benefit to avoid paying taxes of the cancelled debt of your under water property. This document goes into detail of that by sharing notes on the subject from the 2012/2013 Fall Federal and California Tax Update Seminar Real Estate Spidell Publishing, Inc.® 7-16-7-19 ©2013

Please be aware that these notes were written for tax preparers so they do get a bit technical, but they do provide good examples to help with understanding. I would be review your situation with you from a layman’s perspective (I am not a rax professional) and I would be happy to refer you to my trusted tax advisor if you would like a profession consultation.

The Principal Residence Cancellation of Debt (COD) Exclusion Extended through 2013!!!!

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended the COD exclusion for principal residence

through 2013.


Californiafully conforms to the insolvency exclusion under IRC §108.California partially

conforms to the residency exclusion. Like federal law, California’s residency exclusion expired on

December 31, 2012.


The California Legislature must extend the residency exclusion or it will be unavailable in 2013.


If the exclusion is not extended, a taxpayer must look to insolvency to exclude COD income on a

principal residence.




Under IRC §108(a)(1)(E) and (h), a taxpayer may exclude from income up to $2 million of COD

income from the discharge of qualified principal residence indebtedness on or afterJanuary 1, 2007,

and beforeJanuary 1, 2013. (IRC §108(a)(1)(E) and (h))


California conformity

California conforms, with these major exceptions:

Qualified principal residence indebtedness is limited to $800,000 ($400,000 formarried filing

separate) instead of the federal $2million ($1 million for married filing separate); and

The maximum COD income exclusion is further limited to $500,000 ($250,000 for

taxpayers married filing separately).

California’s principal residence exclusion also no longer applies to sales or exchanges on or

after January 1, 2013. (R&TC §17144.5)



If the qualified principal residence exclusion is not an option for some of your clients, you must

consider insolvency.California conforms to the insolvency provision, so this exclusion will apply for

federal and state purposes. (R&TC §17131)

A taxpayer may exclude from income a discharge of indebtedness that occurs while the taxpayer

is insolvent (but not involved in bankruptcy proceedings) up to the amount by which he or she is

insolvent. (IRC §108(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A), and (a)(3))

The term “insolvent” means that there is an excess of liabilities over the FMV of assets,

determined on the basis of the taxpayer’s assets and liabilities immediately before the discharge.

(IRC §108(d)(3)) See below for a discussion of the assets included in the insolvency calculation.

Liabilities include contingent liabilities or liabilities that the taxpayer has guaranteed if it is more

likely than not that the taxpayer will be called upon to pay them. (Merkel v. Comm. (1999) 192 F.2d

844) A taxpayer must be able to prove insolvency. (Rinehart v. Comm.,TCM 2002-71)

For many taxpayers, especially those who have frequently refinanced their residence, the

insolvency provisions will allow them to exclude most of their discharge.

The excluded amount is applied to reduce tax attributes in the order listed on Form 982,

Reduction of Tax Attributes Due to Discharge of Indebtedness (and Section 1082 Basis Adjustment).

However, an insolvent taxpayer may elect to apply all or a portion of the excluded amount first to

reduce basis in depreciable assets or in real property held as inventory, rather than to reduce the tax


For more information on the basis adjustments, see the instructions for Form 982.

Note: A taxpayer may use the insolvency exclusion even if the COD income forgiven exceeds the

amount of his or her tax attributes, or if he or she has no tax attributes. The amount of COD income

in excess of the amount by which the taxpayer is insolvent is treated like COD income of a wholly

solvent taxpayer and will generally be included in income. (IRC §§61(a)(12), 108(a)(3))


Example of excess COD income

Tina has $250,000 ofCODincome.

Tina is insolvent, but her liabilities only exceed her assets by $160,000. Tina will pay

tax on $90,000 of her COD income ($250,000COD- $160,000 of insolvency).


Example of insolvency

Garybought his house for $200,000. He refinanced the property several times, and

used the proceeds to send his kids to college, take vacations, purchase a boat, etc. The

value of the house had risen to $700,000, and the balance of his mortgage was $650,000.

All of the debt was recourse debt, and only $150,000 was acquisition indebtedness.

The home’s value has fallen to $500,000. He has other assets worth $50,000 and other

liabilities of $80,000.

Garyis insolvent to the extent of $180,000 (total assets = $550,000; total liabilities =



California conformity

Californiaconforms to the insolvency exclusion. (R&TC §17024.5)


Assets for purposes of the insolvency exclusion

The Code provides only for “assets.” Thus, a taxpayer must count cash, stocks and bonds, and

other business and investment assets, along with personal assets such as a personal residence, auto,

and household goods.

More controversial are exempt assets. Both theIRSand the Tax Court have previously held that

assets exempt from creditors’ claims are excluded when taking account of a taxpayer’s assets in determining insolvency. (Babin v. Comm., TCM 1992-673; Hunt v. Comm., TCM 1989-335; Estate of

Marcus v. Comm.,TCM 1975-9;PLR 9125010) However, these cases were decided under the judicial

insolvency exclusion that preceded the statutory exclusion.

More recently, both the Tax Court and theIRShave ruled the opposite way; that is, they have

ruled that assets exempt from creditors are counted, including pension assets. (Carlson v. Comm.

(2001) 116 TC 87;PLR199932013;TAM199935002; SCA 1998-039)

For purposes of valuing pension assets, defined contribution plans are valued as the FMV of the

participant’s account on the date of discharge.

Defined benefit plans are valued in one of two ways, depending on whether the participant has

started receiving benefits:

Has started to receive benefits: Actuarial present value of the payments to be made using

the interest rate and mortality tables at Treas. Regs. §20.2031-7; or

Has not started receiving benefits: Greater of the actuarial present value of the accrued

benefit payable at normal retirement age, or the amount of any single-sum distribution that

the participant could receive under the plan as of the discharge date.
Documentation is important

Taxpayers were denied an insolvency exclusion because they were unable to provide sufficient

evidence to support their insolvency calculation. (Shepherd v. Comm.,TCM 2012-212)

In 2008, the taxpayers came to a settlement agreement with their credit card company, and

$4,412 of their outstanding debt was cancelled. The taxpayers received a 1099-C listing the cancelled

debt. However, they did not claim the $4,412 as income on their return because they claimed they

were insolvent.

The IRS disagreed with the taxpayers’ insolvency calculation. Specifically, they questioned the

FMV used for two homes owned by the taxpayers, and the husband’s pension in theNew   Jersey

Public Employees Retirement System.


The value of the homes

To support the value of their beach house the taxpayers presented a settlement between them

and the city where the property is located, which established the value of the property for the 2010

year for property tax purposes. This evidence was problematic for two reasons:

1. The Tax Court has previously held that the value placed on property for purposes of local

taxation is not acceptable to determine FMV for income tax purposes (Pierce v. Comm. (1974)

61 TC 424); and

2. Taxpayers are required to demonstrate they are insolvent immediately before the debt is

cancelled. In this case, that was 2008, not 2010.

The Court noted that the taxpayers did not present evidence of comparable sales for the period

immediately before the debt cancellation, which would have been acceptable evidence.

To support the value of their principal residence, the taxpayers presented:

1. A letter datedMarch 29, 2011, fromChase Bank showing the value of the principal residence; and

2. A “2008 Final/2009 Preliminary Tax Bill.”

Again, a property tax valuation is not sufficient to support FMV for income tax purposes, and

the evidence must support value immediately prior to the cancellation.

The Court also stated that the letter from Chase Bank was not sufficient to establish value

because it did not describe the property or the method used to establish value.


The pension

Although the Court found that the taxpayers were not insolvent because of the lack of evidence

to support FMV of the two homes, they still addressed the issue of the husband’s pension.

They specifically noted that the taxpayers did not include the husband’s pension in their list of

assets, but did include a loan from the pension in their list of liabilities. The Court stated that for

consistency purposes, the taxpayer must either remove the loan as a liability or include the collateral

that secures the loan (the pension) as an asset. However, the Court also noted that “the portion of

the pension that could have been withdrawn as a loan is an asset for purposes of insolvency.”


I hope you found this information as useful as I did! If you would like to discuss your situation with me, I would be happy to prodvide you with a free, no obligation consultation. My direct number is 925-577-8692.

Enhanced by Zemanta

California Short Sales Have to Be Non-Deficient

In case you did not hear the news over the summer, there is Great news for Livermore, Bay Area and California Homeowners who are underwater and need to short sale their home: Short Sales in California Now Have to Be Non-Deficient! In layman terms, the banks can no longer come after you for any additional funds once you closed an approved short sale in California.

There are now California two laws in place regarding short sales and how they have to be non-deficient in California now: SB 931 (has to do with the first liens having to be non-deficient) and SB 458 (as of July 15 of this year, second lien holders cannot pursue a deficiency after short sale either). Below I included the link to a video that one of my coaches did related to SB 931 to explain the law so you can check it out for yourself. If your loans are not original purchase money loans and your second is an equity line, I highly recommend that you confirm it with an attorney since refinanced loand and equity lines have historically been treated a little differently; hopefully, the new laws will take care of that!

He is the link to the video: