Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The article demonstrates the variety of scenarios in which the exclusion under Sec. 121 can be applied. I understood the situation where two unmarried individuals jointly own a home. For example, the homeowners want to sell their house, or their property has been destroyed by a natural disaster or an accident. Under Sec. 121, they are both eligible for an exclusion from income up to $150 000, provided they both conform to the eligibility criteria (Campbell & Czapla, 2019). Therefore, several people owning one house can use this rule to maximize their gain.
A part of the article that requires more explanation is the description of the imminent threat of condemnation. It is clear that one has to name a particular party that has made threats that led to the sale. However, I would like to learn more about how to prove that the threat has been made to help clients in similar situations. Similarly, a surprising fact for me is the condition that a surviving spouse cannot be remarried when the sale is made to qualify for the exclusion for married couples (Campbell & Czapla, 2019). This is a factor that many people are not likely to know.
Overall, I found the article very informative – many of the provided scenarios can help in helping clients plan for this type of exclusion. First of all, I would consult individuals on the conditions that qualify them for the exclusion under Sec. 121. I would tell them about the need to reside in the home and avoid trips or other absences longer than three months to ensure the house could be called their primary residence. In other cases, I would discuss the possibility of refusing the exclusion based on the benefits they could potentially gain from a sale in the future.
Reference
Campbell, A., & Czapla, K. (2019). Involuntary conversion of a principal residence. The Tax Adviser. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.