Taxes: Sold House this Year, Buying Next Year
When you sell your primary residence, you are required to capitalize any loss or gain at that point; you do not carry over your loss or gain (as you might in an investment property).  As such, the timing of the purchase of the next house is not relevant in this discussion: you gained however much you gained already.  This changed from the other (rollover) method in 1997 (see this bankrate article for more details.) However, as discussed in IRS Tax Topic 701, you can exclude up to $250,000 (single or filing separately) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) of gain if it is your primary residence and meets a few requirements (mostly, that you owned it for at least 2 years in the past 5 years, and similarly used it as your main home for at least 2 years of the past 5 years).   So given you reported 25% gain, as long as your house is under a million dollars or so, you're fine (and if it's over a million dollars, you probably should be paying a CPA for this stuff). For California state tax, it looks like it is the same (see this Turbotax forum answer for a good explanation and links to this California Franchise Tax Board guide which confirms it: For sale or exchanges after May 6, 1997, federal law allows   an exclusion of gain on the sale of a personal residence in   the amount of $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly).   The taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence   as a principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years before the   sale. California conforms to this provision. However, California   taxpayers who served in the Peace Corps during the 5 year   period ending on the date of the sale may reduce the 2 year   period by the period of service, not to exceed 18 months. To your first question: YES. Capital gains and losses on real-estate are treated differently than income. Note here for exact IRS standards.  The IRS will not care about percentage change but historical (recorded) amounts.   To your second question: NO  Are you taxed when buying a new stock? No. But be sure to record the price paid for the house. Note here for more questions. *Always consult a CPA for tax advice on federal tax returns.
"The ""easier"" way is to sell the house, and pay back the 95K to the mortgage company. Your taxable gain (if any) is calculated as the difference between the sales price minus the purchased price of 150K. There is a further deduction for any selling expenses, before you have to pay income tax. If you liquidate your other investments to raise the 95K and prepay the mortgage, you might realize, and be taxed on gains on **those ** investments. That's something you might not want. On the other hand, if you have some investments that can be liquidated at a loss, you might want to sell those to generate a tax loss, then prepay all or part of the 95K. Bear in mind that there are limitations of 3K a year for certain types of losses. So see a tax adviser before using this course of action." Loans are not taxable events. The equity you took out is not income. It's a loan, and you pay it back with interest. You pay taxes on the capital gain of the home when you sell it. The tax does not take into account any mortgages, HELOCs, or other loans secured by the house. Instead the tax is calculated based on the price you sold it for, minus the price you bought it for, which is known as the capital gain. You can exclude $250k of that gain for a single person, $500k for a married couple. (There are a few other wrikles as well.) That would be true regardless of the loan balance at the time. The estimated approach puts more burden on you to get it right.  Depending on when in the year you make the sale, it may or may not have advantages to you in addition.  Other than the responsibility of ensuring that you make the payment on time, the pros and cons seem to be: Either strategy is legitimate.  It depends on when in the year you have the sale, how sure you are of the sale, and just your personal preference on how to get this done.  Your total tax due for the year will not be different (as long as you pay in such as way that you don't incur late penalties in any quarter). Most house transactions require the taxes due to be paid off during closing. This would normally be taken from the proceeds of the sale. Since you have plenty of equity you won't have to come up with cash to do this. Depending on your location taxes are sometimes paid up to the date of sale or in advance or arrears by up to six months. In any event you should have plenty of money to pay off any taxes you may owe. Your real estate agent should be able to give you a definitive answer (or the title agency if you are selling it yourself). The question seems to be from the point of view actual sales and not its impact on one's taxation. In case you just want to sell, why brokers will respond differently each times. Either there may be issues with ownership and/or the company whose shares it is? In case you feel that the issues lies with brok You realise a capital gain as soon as you sell the stock. At that point, you will have to pay taxes on the profits when you fill in your tax return. The fact that you used the money to subsequently purchase other stocks is not relevant, unless you sell those stocks within the same tax year. For example, purchase $5000 of stock A in 2010. Sell for $6000 in 2010. Purchase $6000 of stock B in 2010. Sell stock B for $6500 in 2010. Purchase $6500 of stock C in 2010. Sell stock C for $7000 in 2011. You owe capital gains on ($6000 - $5000) + ($6500 - $6000) = $1500 for tax year 2010. You owe capital gains on ($7000 - $6500) = $500 for 2011. "No one has addressed the fact that your loan interest and property taxes are ""deductible"" on  your taxes? So, for the first 2/3 years of your loan, you will should be able to deduct each year's mortgage payment off your gross income. This in turn reduces the income bracket for your tax calculation.... I have saved 1000's a year this way, while seeing my home value climb, and have never lost a down payment.  I would consider trying to use 1/2 your savings to buy a property that is desirable to live in and being able to take the yearly deduction off your taxes. As far as home insurance, most people I know have renter's insurance, and homeowner's insurance is not that steep.  Chances are a year from now if you change your mind and wish to sell, unless you're in a severely deflated area, you will reclaim at minimum your down payment." "Is all interest on a first time home deductible on taxes? What does   that even mean? If I pay $14,000 in taxes will My taxes be $14,000   less. Will my taxable income by that much less? If you use the standard deduction in the US (assuming United States), you will have 0 benefit from a mortgage.   If you itemize deductions, then your interest paid (not principal) and your property tax paid is deductible and reduces your income for tax purposes.  If your marginal tax rate is 25% and you pay $10000 in interest and property tax, then when you file your taxes, you'll owe (or get a refund) of $2500 (marginal tax rate * (amount of interest + property tax)). I have heard the term ""The equity on your home is like a bank"". What   does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home   as collateral? If you pay an extra $500 to your mortgage, then your equity in your house goes up by $500 as well.   When you pay down the principal by $500 on a car loan (depreciating asset) you end up with less than $500 in value in the car because the car's value is going down.   When you do the same in an appreciating asset, you still have that money available to you though you either need to sell or get a loan to use that money. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying   $800 in rent, to owning a house? There are several other benefits. These are a few of the positives, but know that there are many negatives to home ownership and the cost of real estate transactions usually dictate that buying doesn't make sense until you want to stay put for 5-7 years.   A shorter duration than that usually are better served by renting.  The amount of maintenance on a house you own is almost always under estimated by new home owners." "Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes.  What will likely change, however, is your cost basis.  You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money.  If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.).  If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price.  The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis.  When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago.  It went up to $2000 and you sold it.  You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes.  Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850.  Now suppose you buy another ETF with that.  Your cost basis is now $1850.  Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000.  This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150.  (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50).  Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it.  You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid).  15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement.  So in essence you pay the same taxes either way.  (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is ""tax exempt"", but each time you sell, you ""reset the counter"" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment.  Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them.  Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself.  In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you." "This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the ""basis price.""  You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping.  You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates.  You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses.  Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June,  the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you.  The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms.  This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose.   Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned ""riding out bad times in cash.""  No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's ""sell low, buy high."" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom.  Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't." This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats: Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents.  If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and  $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income  tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A.  In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount.  If you are a resident of State B, then State B  will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is.  As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate  investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual  bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return.  As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will  recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which  will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get  to be deducted.  At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well. Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing.  Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding.  Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other.   The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld.  If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain.  That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1:  Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding.  Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld.  You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120.   Option 2:  Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding.  Same assumptions.  You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding.  Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525.  Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3:  Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding.  You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter.  Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year. "Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred.  The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first ""gain"" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain.  This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year.  Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it)." I get a subscription to WSJ through work and I use it everyday.  What is the price of the subscription though?  I find it useful and Barrons has a lot regarding business and the stock market.  A lot of professionals have subscriptions to the WSJ.  I prefer the WSJ over other services and I really like the market data they provide.