In the wake of the real estate market meltdown, homeowners are often left singed with unexpected tax consequences from a foreclosure or short sale. Here are a few issues you may want to address if you, like many others, are left with a home that is “upside down” and are trying to determine your best course of action.

Tax treatment of foreclosures and deeds in lieu of foreclosure.

Foreclosure is the legal process whereby a lender obtains a court-ordered termination of a delinquent borrower’s interest in the borrower’s mortgaged property by forcing the sale of that property. The property is sold under the court’s supervision, with the proceeds going first to satisfy the mortgage, then other lien holders, then the borrower. In the current economic climate, of course, the fair market value of the property is likely to be lower than the amount borrowed to purchase that property. In that case, the proceeds are still applied first to the mortgage; however, an amount remains due on the loan. Depending on the type of promissory note signed by the borrower, the lender may have an action against the debtor personally for the balance.

If the debt is only secured by the real property, the debtor is not personally liable for the deficiency between the principal amount of the mortgage and the fair market value or sales price of the property, and the debt is referred to as a “non-recourse” debt. If the debt is "recourse," the debtor is personally liable for the debt above and beyond the value of the real property securing the debt. In Nevada, most mortgages in the residential context are recourse, and debtors are personally liable for any unpaid loan amounts on their mortgages after a foreclosure sale.

The tax treatment of a foreclosure also differs based on whether the debt is non-recourse or recourse. When a foreclosure (or deed in lieu of foreclosure) takes place in the recourse loan context, the debt is satisfied up to the fair market value of the property, and the transaction is treated as a sale. If the lender forgives the balance of the mortgage, the IRS treats the amount forgiven as ordinary income, which is reported to the borrower on “Form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt,” which must be reported as income on the borrower’s income tax return in the year of forgiveness. Hence the borrower is left homeless and may be taxed for the forgiveness of the debt above the fair market value of the house. There are certain exceptions that may apply, and you should consult with your tax advisor with the specifics of your situation.

When a nonrecourse mortgage is foreclosed, the property is treated as being sold for the balance of the mortgage regardless of whether the sale price equals or exceeds the amount borrowed. The balance of the loan above the fair market value of the home is not treated as income to the borrower; thus, the borrower is not taxed on any type of “forgiveness of debt income.”

Taxation of short sales.

A “short sale” is similar to a foreclosure in that the sale proceeds fall short of the balance owed on the property’s loan. It differs from a foreclosure because, in a short sale, both the lender and the borrower agree to sell the property at a loss in order to avoid foreclosure.

In a recourse debt scenario, even if the bank agrees to a short sale of your residence, the debt is not necessarily cancelled. Therefore, any debt not satisfied with the sale proceeds would be taxable as cancellation of debt income similar to the foreclosure situation above, with a few exceptions. For non-recourse debt, the seller and buyer can require the lender to cancel the debt as a condition of the short sale. In that case, the debt cancellation is included in the sale proceeds; therefore, it is not taxable as income to the seller.

A short sale can be a viable alternative to a foreclosure for debtors with nonrecourse debt and who qualify for certain exclusions. Be aware, however, that the lender has up to 6 years in the short sale context to try to recover a deficiency from the borrower compared to only 6 months in a foreclosure.

We are now nine months into 2010 and many of the same questions facing estate planners and their client earlier this year in January are still unanswered.

Will we see estate tax legislation prior to 2011 preventing a return to a pre-EGTRRA tax regime?

 Will that legislation affect the current estate tax environment and provide for the retroactive installment of an estate tax?

 How do I handle this carryover basis business?

What federal estate tax form should be filed for persons dying during 2010?

Thus, with these and other unanswered quizzical queries floating around the estate tax world, what’s an estate planner to say at the next neighborhood BBQ when his/her clients, tax preparing colleagues, and/or the throngs of interested parties and neighborhood children are almost certain to ask if a 706 needs to be filed during 2010? Unfortunately, as far as we can tell, these and many similar questions are no closer to being answered today than they were at the beginning of the year. And with a pivotal election season on the horizon, it’s unlikely we’ll see any resolution on the estate tax front before November. That being said, there are some hints of guidance and forthcoming information in the area of estate tax return compliance which we are wont to share with you, our readers, as expressed below:

First, Internal Revenue Code Section 6075 addresses the time for filing an estate tax return. Section 6075 states that those required to file estate tax returns are required to do so by the due date on which the final federal income tax return the decedent would have filed, i.e. April 15, 2011. At this point, you might be saying, “That’s great! But, on what form do I report the pertinent information, and how do I file it, seeing as how there is no IRS Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation- Skipping Transfer ) Tax Return for 2010 available?” To which I would reply, “See my second point below.”

Second, the word on the street is that the IRS will not be releasing a traditional Form 706 for 2010. Rather, the Service will be providing a new type of return meant to address the carryover basis provision of the 2010 estate tax law as well as the accompanying allocation of stepped-up basis allowances ($1.3 million to anyone and $3 million going to a spouse or QTIP-like trust) feature. Apparently the new return will require that within 30 days of its due date, each person receiving property as part of the administration of the trust/estate is to receive the basis information being reported on the return. Additional information from the IRS supports the rumor that the death of the 706 for 2010 is not exaggerated seeing as how an attorney for the IRS (Patrick Leahy) publicly stated that it is not necessary to file a Form 706 this year and that if one is filed, it will be returned to the party that filed the form. Consequently, in an estate tax world of many uncertainties, at least three things are quite certain: (1) The IRS will provide a mechanism to report the allocation of stepped-up basis on inherited assets for 2010; (2) the tracking of this basis will likely be the bane of many a CPA’s existence for years to come; and (3) whatever you do, don’t file a Form 706 for 2010.

Third, if new estate tax legislation is not put in place in the near future, the estate tax regime formerly known as a “55% rate and a $1 million exemption”s will be making an encore appearance come 2011. In the event of such an occurrence, rest assured, one more thing is relatively certain: enough federal estate tax returns will be filed for deaths taking place in 2011 to more than make up for the dearth of such filings this year.

Fourth, plan accordingly.

An interesting case recently was reported concerning valuation of assets within a corporation upon a person’s death and the estate tax deduction applicable to the taxes which the heirs will ultimately pay upon the sale of those assets.

Here’s the problem: When a person dies with a corporation which has assets, e.g. real estate, equipment, etc., that are worth more than the depreciated basis, if those assets are sold, there will be a big capital gain or ordinary income tax to pay. So even though you may inherit assets worth $100,000, if the subsequent tax on sale of those assets will be $25,000, and if there is nothing you can do to avoid that tax on sale, you are really getting something less than $100,000 because of this built-in tax.

A federal court recently ruled that the estate would receive a dollar-for-dollar estate tax deduction for each dollar of tax related to the built-in gain which the heirs would have to pay if the properties were sold. The IRS, as one might imagine, opposed this deduction, but the judge held for the taxpayer in granting a substantial estate tax deduction because of this built-in gains tax. There were numerous legal theories discussed by the judge in his opinion, which are beyond the scope of this blog at this time. The important thing to take from this is that there are many creative techniques available to estates if you obtain competent counsel who are aware of these opportunities. We often see people who choose to “go it alone” in their tax filings, and yes, they are probably saving some money up front, but it is likely they will never know how much they gave up on the back end by not taking advantage of the opportunities which an experienced tax professional can provide.

I find myself very fortunate to have worked on some very exciting and complex estate plans. We have great clients with complicated estates, and for a tax-geek like me, it is a lot of fun to be able to put in place complicated trusts and engage in interesting family transactions. This week, I was able to pull myself away from tax geek stuff in order to spend a few personal minutes surfing the internet (during lunch, of course). Many of you may have seen that it was discovered this week from tax records that the late Johnny Carson (late-night comedy show host and predecessor to Jay Leno) had transferred more than $150 Million to a private Foundation bearing his name. (CNN/Money) Two weeks ago there was an announcement that several billionaires in the U.S. had joined Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in pledging to give away a significant portion of their estates to charity. Despite books, treatises, articles, and seminars providing instructions and examples of intriguing and sexy methods to reduce a taxable estate, there is actually a very easy way for a wealthy person to pass away with a zero-tax estate. The key ingredient is charity.

We have had clients choose this method for their final planning. Here’s how it typically works: the client selects a moderate sum to pass to their children or loved ones. (Last year for a married couple this could be up to $7 Million without paying tax). Then, the rest of the estate is directed to pass to charity. The charity can be a private family foundation, allowing the children, family members, or friends to become involved in family philanthropy after the parents’ death (Such as Johnny Carson and Bill Gates). Or, the charity could be an outside organization, such as a church, school, or welfare organization, etc. The result: zero estate tax. Fascinatingly easy.

By guest writer Bill E. Wilson, ChFC, of Waddell & Reed, Las Vegas
With the lure of tax-free distributions, Roth IRAs have become popular retirement savings vehicles since their introduction in 1998. But if you're a high-income taxpayer, chances are you haven't been able to participate in the Roth revolution. Well, that's about to change.

What are the rules?

There are currently three ways to fund a Roth IRA--you can contribute directly, you can convert all or part of a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, or you can roll funds over from an eligible employer retirement plan (more on this third method later). Before 2010, you could contribute up to $5,000 to an IRA (traditional, Roth, or a combination of both). If you were age 50 or older, you could contribute up to $6,000.

Regardless of whether you contributed directly to a Roth IRA, if your income level ("modified adjusted gross income," or MAGI) was $100,000 or less, and you were single or married filing jointly, you could convert an existing traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. But if you were married filing separately, or your MAGI exceeded $100,000, you were not allowed to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA.

What's changed?
In 2006, President Bush signed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act (TIPRA) into law. TIPRA repeals the $100,000 income limit for conversions, and also allows conversions by taxpayers who are married filing separately. What this means is that, regardless of your filing status or how much you earn, you'll now be able to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA.

Your ability to make deductible contributions to a traditional IRA may be limited if you (or your spouse) is covered by an employer retirement plan and your income exceeds certain limits. But any taxpayer, regardless of income level or retirement plan participation, can make nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA until age 70½. And because nondeductible contributions aren't subject to income tax when you convert your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, they make sense for taxpayers contemplating a 2010 conversion even if they're eligible to make deductible contributions.

And don't forget that SEP IRAs and SIMPLE IRAs (after two years of participation) can also be converted to Roth IRAs. You may want to consider maximizing your contributions to these IRAs now, and then converting them to Roth IRAs in 2010. (You'll need to set up a new IRA to receive any additional SEP or SIMPLE contributions after you convert.)

But there's a taxing problem-
If you've made only nondeductible contributions to your traditional IRA, then only the earnings, and not your own contributions, will be subject to tax at the time you convert the IRA to a Roth. But if you've made both deductible and nondeductible IRA contributions to your traditional IRA, and you don't plan on converting the entire amount, things can get complicated. That's because under IRS rules, you can't just convert the nondeductible contributions to a Roth and avoid paying tax at conversion. Instead, the amount you convert is deemed to consist of a pro-rata portion of the taxable and nontaxable dollars in the IRA.

For example, assume that in 2010 your traditional IRA contains $350,000 of taxable (deductible) contributions, $100,000 of taxable earnings, and $50,000 of nontaxable (nondeductible) contributions. You can't convert only the $50,000 nondeductible (nontaxable) contributions to a Roth. Instead, you'll need to prorate the taxable and nontaxable portions of the account. So in the example above, 90% ($450,000/ $500,000) of each distribution from the IRA in 2010 (including any conversion) will be taxable, and 10% will be nontaxable.

You can't escape this result by using separate IRAs. The IRS makes you aggregate all your traditional IRAs (including SEPs and SIMPLEs) when calculating the taxes due whenever you take a distribution from (or convert) any of the IRAs. But for every glitch, there's a potential workaround. In this case, one way to avoid the prorating requirement, and to ensure you convert only nontaxable dollars, is to first roll over all of your taxable IRA money (that is, your deductible contributions and earnings) to an employer retirement plan like a 401(k) (assuming you have access to an employer plan that accepts rollovers). This will leave only the nontaxable money in your traditional IRA, which you can then convert to a Roth IRA tax free. (You can leave the taxable IRA money in the employer plan, or roll it back over to an IRA at a later date.)

But even if you have to pay tax at conversion, TIPRA contains more good news--if you make a conversion in 2010, you'll be able to report half the income from the conversion on your 2011 tax return and the other half on your 2012 return. For example, if your only traditional IRA contains $250,000 of taxable dollars (your deductible contributions and earnings) and $175,000 of nontaxable dollars (your nondeductible contributions), and you convert the entire amount to a Roth IRA in 2010, you'll report half of the income ($125,000) in 2011, and the other half ($125,000) in 2012.

And speaking of employer retirement plans...
Before 2008, you couldn't roll funds over from a 401(k) or other eligible employer plan directly to a Roth IRA unless the dollars came from a Roth 401(k) account or a Roth 403(b) account. In order to get a distribution of non-Roth dollars from your employer plan into a Roth IRA you needed to first roll the funds over to a traditional IRA and then (if you met the income limits and other requirements) convert the traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. And, as described earlier, you needed to aggregate all your traditional IRAs to determine how much income tax you owed when you converted the traditional IRA.

The Pension Protection Act of 2006 streamlined this process. Now, you can simply roll over a distribution of non-Roth dollars from a 401(k) or other eligible plan directly (or indirectly in a 60-day rollover) to a Roth IRA. And you'll still need to pay income tax on any taxable dollars rolled over.

One benefit of this new procedure is that you can avoid the proration rule, since you're not converting a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This can be helpful if you have nontaxable money in the employer plan and your goal is to minimize the taxes you'll pay when you convert.

For example, assume you receive a $100,000 distribution from your 401(k) plan, and $40,000 is nontaxable because you've made after-tax contributions. You can roll the $60,000 over tax free to a traditional IRA, and then roll the after-tax balance ($40,000) over to a Roth IRA. Since only after-tax dollars are contributed to the Roth IRA, this rollover is also tax free. (Both your plan's terms and the order in which you make the rollovers may be important, so be sure to consult a qualified professional.)

Is a Roth conversion right for you?

The answer to this question depends on many factors, including your income tax rate, the length of time you can leave the funds in the Roth IRA without taking withdrawals, your state's tax laws, and how you'll pay the income taxes due at the time of the conversion. And don't forget--if you make a Roth conversion and it turns out not to be advantageous, IRS rules allow you to "undo" the conversion (within certain time limits). A financial professional can help you decide whether a Roth conversion is right for you, and help you plan for this exciting new retirement savings opportunity.