Legal settlement on sale of house > 2 yrs

A couple of questions and a couple of posts.

Taxpayer sells personal residence in about 2004 or so, Married Filing Joint, and uses about 200K of the 500K exclusion. There was a suit pending related to contamination on the site.

3 years later, in 2007 he receives about $100K legal settlement on the contamination suit.

The lawyers take 1/3.

Understandably, his position is: (1) This settlement is linked to the sale of the residence, and that liability really existed at that time and so should not be taxable. (2) The legal fees are to get what was originally rightfully his, he was only "made whole" by the settlement, so legal expenses should be 2% misc deductible as protection of assets.

What say you?

Reply to
tomchand
Loading thread data ...

I say, the amount received was ordinary income to the extent that it was used to pay legal fees, reportable on Form 1040 line 21, and deductible subject to 2% AGI on Schedule A.

The remainder of the settlement, not used to pay legal fees, is capital gain from the sale of the house.

-Mark Bole

Reply to
Mark Bole

Was the any personal injury? Amounts from personal injury are not taxable (see

formatting link
and search for"damages").

You mean $33k other income, and $33k expenses on Schedule A (but only amount over 2% of AGI deductible, subject to phaseout, subject to AMT)?

Would any exclusion apply? I think not, because this is a new transaction. And if it is a capital gain, would it be taxable at

15%. That does seem a bit strange to me.
Reply to
removeps-groups

I say he has an additional $100,000 of gain excludible under Section

121. Since he has no taxable income, he has no deduction for legal fees.
Reply to
Bill Brown

Although I didn't state explicitly, in my reply I assumed the portion of the settlement that was capital gain on the sale of the house would also be excludable under Section 121, if all the other requirements had been met at time of sale.

-Mark Bole

Reply to
Mark Bole

Which part of section 121 allows him to treat this 100k received in

2007 as part of exclusion when he sold his house in 2004?

formatting link

Reply to
removeps-groups

We don't know the nature of the judgment. But if it was for a reason that resulted in the sale being for less than $100,000 than it should have been, I'd think it would be allowed as gain from the sale of property.

To my mind it's similar to an installment sale.

Stu

Reply to
Stuart Bronstein

I think it's part of the sale.

Seth

Reply to
Seth

Just to reiterate my previous reply, I also think it is part of the sale, eligible for the exclusion if all other tests are passed.

-Mark Bole

Reply to
Mark Bole

The part of Section 121 that allows him to exclude the first $250,000 ($500,000 on a joint return) of gain realized on the sale of a qualified personal residence.

Reply to
Bill Brown

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.