Tax treatment of renovation costs and mortgage interest on a second house
Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.
It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals. The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself.  Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you.  Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings. @Pete B.'s answer is good, but there's an important note to consider for tax purposes.  It's too large for a comment, so I'm adding it as an answer. And that is: you cannot claim the property as a rental property under certain conditions.  This affects things like claiming mortgage interest (which you don't have), and depreciation in value (which a rental is allowed). See IRS topic 415 for details, but I've included an important excerpt below with emphasis added: If you rent a dwelling unit to others that you also use as a residence, limitations may apply to the rental expenses you can deduct. You're considered to use a dwelling unit as a residence if you use it for personal purposes during the tax year for more than the greater of:  ...   A day of personal use of a dwelling unit is any day that it's used by: Talk to a tax accountant to better understand the ramifications of this, but it's worth noting that you can't just rent it to her for a paltry sum and be able to take tax advantages from this arrangement. If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account.  Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable.  One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly.  The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property.  I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero).  Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting.  Run the numbers.  Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer.  It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation.  Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side.  Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting.  Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side).  Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area.   Assuming that the numbers add up to buying:  buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small. "Not sure what you are talking about.  The house isn't part of a business so neither of you can deduct half of normal maintenance and repairs.  It is just the cost of having a house.   The only time this would be untrue is if the thing that you are buying for the house is part of a special deduction or rebate for that tax year.  For instance the US has been running rebates and deductions on certain household items that reduce energy - namely insulation, windows, doors, and heating/cooling systems (much more but those are the normal things). And in actuality if your brother is using the entire house as a living quarters you should be charging him some sort of rent.  The rent could be up to the current monthly market price of the home minus 50%.  If it were my family I would probably charge them what I would pay for a 3% loan on the house minus 50%.   Going back to the repairs... Really if these repairs are upgrades and not things caused by using the house and ""breaking"" or ""wearing"" things you should be paying half of this, as anything that contributes to the increased property value should be paid for equally if you both are expecting to take home 50% a piece once you sell it." There's a couple issues to consider: When you sell your primary home, the IRS gives you a $500k exemption (married, filing jointly) on gain.  If you decide not to sell your current house now, and you subsequently fall outside the ownership/use tests, then you may owe taxes on any gains when you sell the house. Rather than being concerned about your net debt, you should be concerned about your monthly debt payments.  Generally speaking, you cannot have debt payments of more than 36% of your monthly income.  If you can secure a renter for your current property, then you may be able to reach this ratio for your next (third) property. Also, only 75% of your expected monthly rental income is considered for calculating your 36% number. (This is not an exhaustive list of risks you expose yourself to). The largest risk is if you or your spouse find yourself without income (e.g. lost job, accident/injury, no renter), then you may be hurting to make your monthly debt payments.   You will need to be confident that you can pay all your debts.  A good rule that I hear is having the ability to pay 6 months worth of debt.  This may not necessarily mean having 6 months worth of cash on hand, but access to that money through personal lines of credit, borrowing against assets, selling stocks/investments, etc. You also want to make sure that your insurance policies fully cover you in the event that a tenant sues you, damages property, etc.  You also don't want to face a situation where you are sued because of discrimination.  Hiring a property management company to take care of these things may be a good peace-of-mind. If there was no question of improvements to the property, the problem would be simple. Each person invests whatever amount. Calculate the percentage of each person's investment out of the entire investment, and that's what share each one owns. Like: A puts in $10,000 for the deposit and pays $5,000 toward the mortgage over the next however many years. B puts in $5,000 toward the deposit but pays $7,000 of the mortgage. C puts in $15,000 but pays only $1,000 of the mortgage payments. So total investments: A - $15,000, B - $12,000, C - $16,000. Total - $43,000. So A's share of the house is 15,000/43,000 = 34.9%. Etc. If you then sell it you pay off any outstanding debt, and then everybody gets their share of what's left. But once you start making improvements, there is no simple formula. Suppose you put down new flooring in the dining room. You pay $500 for materials and put in 20 hours of labor. Presumably you have now added something more than $500 to your share, but how much more? How much are the hours worth? What if someone damages the house -- puts a hole in the all or something -- and then fixes it. Does the time and effort they put into fixing it add to their investment, or did that just cancel out the damage they did? What if one person does a lot to keep the house in generally good condition in small snippets of time, like cleaning furnace filters and polishing the floors, while another does nothing and lets their share get run down and dirty? It gets very complicated. Theoretically you could come up with a rate at which you value your work -- like say every hour spent maintaining the house is worth $10 or $20 or whatever. But who's going to keep track of it over the course of potentially many years? And what if one person does a small number of big, easily quantifiable jobs, while another does many small, hard-to-count jobs? Like if A mops the floor every week for 2 years, is that worth more or less than B installing 3 ceiling fans, a door, and 2 windows? You could go around and around on this sort of thing. If you're repairing an existing appliance - its an expense. If you're replacing an existing appliance with a new one - that's disposing of one capital asset and putting in service another. You depreciate the new one and you dispose of the old one (if not fully depreciated - talk to your tax adviser how to handle the remaining value). The additional costs of the fixes that are not related to the installation of the new appliance are regular maintenance expenses, so you have to get an itemized invoice from the plumber to know what to expense and what to capitalize. "I don't follow the numbers in your example, but the fundamental question you're asking is, ""If I can borrow money for a low cost, and if I think I can invest it and receive returns greater than that cost, should I do it?"" It doesn't matter where that money comes from, a mortgage that's bigger than it needs to be, a credit card teaser rate, or a margin line from your stock broker. The answer is ""maybe"" - depending on the certainty you have about the returns you'd receive on your investments and your tolerance for risk. Only you can answer that question for yourself. If you make less than your mortgage rates on the investments, you'll wish you hadn't! As an aside, I don't know anything about Belgian tax law, but in US tax law, your deductions can be limited to the actual value of the home. Your law may be similar and thus increase the effective mortgage interest rate." Isn't that a deduction mostly used by the top 1%? There seem to be mostly 2 types of people, those who own many homes, And those that rent them...  I always thought the mortgage interest deduction was used substantially more by the wealthy than the middle class... (Luxury homes also offer higher deductions right?) My basic rule of thumb is that if the the bill come from a government office of taxation, and that if you fail to pay the amount they can put a tax lien on the property it is a tax. for you the complication is in Pub530: Assessments for local benefits.    You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to increase the value of your property.   Local benefits include the construction of streets, sidewalks, or   water and sewer systems. You must add these amounts to the basis of   your property.  You can, however, deduct assessments (or taxes) for   local benefits if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest   charges related to those benefits. An example is a charge to repair an   existing sidewalk and any interest included in that charge.  If only a   part of the assessment is for maintenance, repair, or interest   charges, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the   deduction. If you cannot show what part of the assessment is for   maintenance, repair, or interest charges, you cannot deduct any of it. An assessment for a local benefit may be listed as an item in your   real estate tax bill. If so, use the rules in this section to find how   much of it, if any, you can deduct. I have never seen a tax bill that said this amount is for new streets, and the rest i for things the IRS says you can deduct. The issue is that if the Center City tax bill is a separate line or a separate bill then does it count. I would go back to the first line of the quote from Pub 530: You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to   increase the value of your property. Then I would look at the quote from the CCD web site: The Center City District (CCD) is a business improvement district. Our   mission is to keep Philadelphia's downtown, called Center City, clean,   safe, beautiful and fun. We provide security, cleaning and promotional   services that supplement, but do not replace, basic services provided   by the City of Philadelphia and the fundamental responsibilities of   property owners. CCD also makes physical improvements to the downtown, installing and maintaining lighting, > signs, banners, trees and landscape elements.  and later on the same page: CCD directly bills and collects mandatory payments from properties in   the district. CCD also receives voluntary contributions from the   owners of tax-exempt properties that benefit from our services. The issues is that it is a business improvement district (BID), and you aren't a business: I did find this document from the city of Philadelphia explain how to establish a BID: If the nature of the BID is such that organizers wish to include   residential properties within the district and make these properties   subject to the assessment, it may make sense to assess these   properties at a lower level than a commercial property, both because   BID services and benefits are business-focused, and because   owner-occupants often cannot treat NID assessments as tax-deductible   business expenses, like commercial owners do. Care must be taken to   ensure that the difference in commercial and residential assessment   rates is equitable, and complies with the requirements of the CEIA. from the same document: Funds for BID programs and services are generated from a special   assessment paid by the benefited property owners directly to the   organization that manages the BID’s activities. (Note: many leases   have a clause that allows property owners to pass the BID assessment   on to their tenants.) Because they are authorized by the City of   Philadelphia, the assessment levied by the BID becomes a legal   obligation of the property owner and failure to pay can result in the   filing of a lien. I have seen discussion that some BIDS can accept tax deductible donations. This means if a person itemizes they can deduct the donation. I would then feel comfortable deducting the tax because: If you can't deduct it that would mean the only people who can't deduct it are home owners.  So deduct it. (keep in mind I am not a tax professional) This will be a complex issue and you will need to sit down with a professional to work through the issues: When the house was put up for rent the initial year tax forms should have required that the value of the house/property be calculated. This number was then used for depreciation of the house. This was made more complex based on any capital improvements. If the house wasn't the first he owned, then capital gains might have been rolled over from previous houses which adds a layer of complexity.  Any capital improvements while the house was a rental will also have to be resolved because those were also depreciated since they were placed in service. The deprecation will be recaptured and will be a part of the calculation. You have nowhere near enough info to make a calculation at this time. You need to determine for the taxing jurisdiction when the next tax appraisal will be done. In some cases the appraisal is done every year, or two, or three. In other cases it is also done when the property is sold. The county tax office website should contain this information. They will also have information on how to appeal. Most jurisdictions do have a way of looking up not only the rates but the value of the property in question. You will also be interested in determining if the tax value of the property is lower due to local/state laws that limit the growth in value from one assessment to another. A sale of the property could trigger a catchup for the value. It is possible that the degraded value of the home has already been factored into the assessment. It is also possible that it hasn't. Keep in mind that taxes in some jurisdictions can be more complicated because there is also a town/city/county component, and some places that also breakout other items on the tax bill like storm water management, schools, pest spraying. These other items can be based on value, square footage of the lot, or a flat amount. You should get a local opinion on the likelihood of a successful appeal, and how much adjustment you would be able to get. Depending on the sale date and the due date for the taxes, you may be forced to pay the higher tax rate for a while until either the next re-appraisal or the next appeal window.  Note: the fact that it is being auctioned may mean that what you pay for the house may be immaterial because the tax authorities could determine that the motivation to sell quickly could have depressed the value. This type of sale will not impact the value of other houses and can't be used as a basis for determining the value of other properties. 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, $500k for a married couple. (There are a few other wrikles as well.) That would be true regardless of the loan balance at the time. I am not going to argue the merits of investing in real estate (I am a fan I think it is a great idea when done right).  I will assume you have done your due diligence and your numbers are correct, so let's go through your questions point by point. What would be the type of taxes I should expect?  NONE. You are a real estate investor and the US government loves you. Everything is tax deductible and odds are your investment properties will actually manage to shelter some of your W2(day job) income and you will pay less taxes on that too.  Obviously I am exaggerating slightly find a CPA (certified public accountant) that is familiar with real estate, but here are a few examples. I am not a tax professional but hopefully this gives you an idea of what sort of tax benifits you can expect.   How is Insurance cost calculated?  Best advice I have call a few insurance firms and ask them.  You will need landlord insurance make sure you are covered if a tenant gets hurt or burns down your property. You can expect to pay 15%-20% more for landlord insurance than regular insurance (100$/month is not a bad number to just plug in when running numbers its probably high).  Also your lease should require tenants to have renters insurance to help protect you. Have a liability conversation with a lawyer and think about LLCs.   How is the house price increase going to act as another source of income?  Appreciation can be another source of income but it is not really that useful in your scenario.  It is not liquid you will not realize it until you sell the property and then you have to pay capital gains and depreciation recapture on it.  There are methods to get access to the gains on the property without paying taxes.  This is done by leveraging the property, you get the equity but it is not counted as capital gains since you have to pay it back a mortgage or home equity lines of credit (HELOC) are examples of this.  I am not recommending these just making sure you are aware of your options. Please let me know if I am calculating anything wrong but my projection for one year is about $8.4k per house (assuming no maintenance is needed) I would say you estimated profit is on the high side.  Not being involved in your market it will be a wild guess but I would expect you to realize cash-flow per house per year of closer to $7,000.  Maybe even lower given your inexperience.  Some Costs you need to remember to account for: Taxes, Insurance, Vacancy, Repairs, CapEx, Property Management, Utilities, Lawn Care, Snow Removal, HOA Fees. All-in-all expect 50% or your rental income to be spent on the property.  If you do well you can be pleasantly surprised.