vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in ""rent"" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, ""But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here."" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess."
That really depends on the lender, and in the current climate this is extremely unlikely. In the past it was possible to get a loan which is higher than the value of the house (deposit considered), usually on the basis that the buyer is going to improve the property (extend, renovate, etc.) and this increase the value of the property. Responsible lenders required some evidence of the plans to do this, but less responsible ones simply seem to have given the money. Here in the UK this was often based on the assumption that property value tends to rise relatively quickly anyway so a seemingly-reasonable addition to the loan on top of the current value of the property will quickly be covered. That meant that indeed some people have been able to get a loan which is higher than the cost of the purchase, even without concrete plans to actively increase the value of the property. Today the situation is quite different, lenders are a lot more careful and I can't see this happening. All that aside - had it been possible, is it a good idea? I find it difficult to come up with a blanket rule, it really depends on many factors -  On the one hand  mortgage interest rates tend to be significantly lower than shorter term interest rates and from that point of view, it makes sense, right?! However - they are usually very long term, often with limited ability to overpay, which means the interest will be paid over a longer period of time.
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.
This generally requires the first point to be true as well, as it's a general rule that borrowing $10,000 costs you more than you would gain by investing $10,000, but there are situations in which the reverse can be true (if you have $10k in oil or major tech stocks right now, it would probably be a bad move to liquidate them for home improvements if you can get a HELOC at less than 6%). You can realize a net gain in home value from the reno. These situations are rare in cases of an already livable home; ""flippers"", which make their living on renovating homes for a profit, generally choose homes with obvious but easy-to-fix problems that depress home value because they look worse than they are. If you bought your home without any such problems, you probably paid something close to market value at the time, and so you're probably behind the curve. However, if you (or your family in the case of an estate transfer) have owned the home for a long time, long enough for things to fall WAY out of date, then you can catch up a lot of market value with one renovation, where if the home had had two or three renovations along the way a reno now wouldn't gain you as much value."
This may not be entirely scientific, but as a landlord my usual approach is just to do a search for rental properties on Craigslist for comparable homes in the neighborhood. There are all kinds of formulas professional property managers use, but in the end these listings are the ones you are going to be competing with for tenants. Also, it isn't super accurate, but online services like Zillow.com can give you some numbers for rental houses that include those that aren't currently advertising.
Currently, in the US, you won't be able to get 4% return on a risk free investment (savings account, CDs, treasury bonds). If the banking system in India guarantees your money and the cost of transferring them to India is not prohibitive, that's the safest option. Buying a house usually is only worth it if you plan to live in it for a while, 5 years or more being the commonly cited figure. Every case is different, if you rent is very high, it might be worth to buy. I suggest posting another question specifically about that with more details about your situation. If you can tolerate a bit more risk, you might want to talk to a financial adviser and invest in the stock market.
Adding to what others have said, if the mortgage for the new house is backed by the federal government (e.g., through FHA or is to be sold to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) you would be violating 18 USC § 1001, which makes making intentionally false statements to any agent or branch of the federal government a crime punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment. The gift letter you are required to sign will warn you of as much. Don't do it, it's not worth the risk of prison time.
First, the basis is what was paid for the house along with any documented upgrades, any improvements not consider maintenance. Any gain from that point is taxable. This is the issue with gifting a house before one passes. It's an awful mistake. The fact that there was a mortgage doesn't come into play here nor does the $15K given away. Your question is great, and the only missing piece is what the house cost. Keep in mind, depending on the state, you MIL may have gotten a step-up on the passing of her husband.  On a very personal note - my grandparents bough a family house. 4 apartments. 1938 at a cost of $4000. My grandmother transferred 1/2 share to my father well before she died. And before my father's death it was put into my mother's name. Now that she's in her last years, I explained that since moved it to my sister's name already, there's no step up in basis. This share is now worth over $600,000, and after 4 deaths, no step up. When my sister sells, she will have a gain on nearly 100% of the sale price. In my opinion, there's a special place in hell for lawyers that quit claim property like this. For a bit of paperwork, the house could have been put into a trust to avoid probate, avoid being an asset for medicaid, and still get the step up. Even a $2000 cost for a good lawyer to set up a trust would yield a return of nearly $100,000 in taxes avoided. (And as my sister's keeper, I'd have paid the $2,000 myself, no issue that she gets the house. She needs it, I don't. And when the money's gone, I'm all she has anyway.)
Gift taxes kick in at around $13K per giver per recipient per year. That means that a straight up gift of $200K (as cash or a house) will incur a tax. It is possible, however, that if the father has a spouse, he and the spouse could each give the mother and each child the full gift limit, for a total of about $78K per year, and that money could be used by all 3 of them to buy the house jointly, over a couple of years. I think the children would have to be on the title, since part of the gift money would be theirs (and one is an adult). As far as lending the money, my in-laws are our mortgage lenders, and when we structured the loan, it had to be at a market rate (which could be the lowest advertised rate we found for a fixed-rate mortgage, independent of what we might actually qualify for) or we could not deduct interest payments. Forgiving the loan could also be considered a gift, so they would need to keep an audit trail showing that payments were made, and her father would need to declare the interest income on his taxes. If he bought the house as a second home and let her and her children live there rent-free, it might work, but I'm not sure. It would, in that case, be an asset of his estate when he dies. I don't know anything about structuring it as a trust. Free rent could conceivably also be construed as a gift, subject to the limits stated above. Disclaimer: Not a tax professional.
"The current mortgaged owner would typically not have the right to sell any portion of the house without approval from the bank. The bank doesn't ""own"" the house through the mortgage, but they do have a series of rights that, in some cases, look similar to ownership.  Remember that a mortgage is just a loan that uses a house as collateral, to reduce the risk to the lender in the event of default. If it was just a personal loan, without collateral, then there would be a much higher risk of default (and therefore the interest rate would be closer to 20% than 2%). But because the loan was taken with collateral, that collateral can't be sold without the bank's permission. If the bank allowed this to happen, then one risk would be exactly as you say - that the mortgagee stops paying the bank, and the bank no longer is able to recover the full value of the loan on selling the remaining 50% of the house owed as collateral."
A simple and low-interest loan is probably the least likely to cause acrimony, aside from a direct gift. You seem to be describing an equity stake in their house, where some portion of the appreciation in value accrues to you (relative to your initial investment).  An equity stake in their house probably doesn't make much sense.  You sound as though you're not going to do any of the work aside from the contribution of money.  Equity might make sense as a way to reward you for efforts, such as home design or renovation, that increase the value of the home.  You probably don't want to be in a position where you are together improving the property and your payback only comes when she sells for more money.  What if you have different ideas of how to do it?  She has to live there and may want improvements for her needs rather than for buyers.  What if she asks you to pay for a portion of the improvement costs or resents you not offering?  What if she doesn't want to sell for some reason, so your money is locked up with her family choices?  Renovations can often be stressful, so these decisions may be made at difficult times. Either a gift or a low-interest family loan may be simpler for your needs.  You can just set the loan terms you want, say payoff over 10 years or a deferred payment schedule.  If she gets in trouble, you could perhaps delay or forgive payments.  I don't know the UK tax consequences of a loan of this nature, if any. As a general proposition, it's best to set clear and simple expectations at the beginning, and avoid agreements that require multiple decisions to be made consensually in the future, possibly during a time of stress.
This may only apply to Canada, but I would ask if the mortgages they lend are non-transferable. Meaning if you decide in year 2 of your 5 year term that you want to sell and move you pay a penalty, rather than be able to transfer the mortgage to a new house.
Generally, no.  A mortgage is a lien against the property, which allows the bank to exercise certain options, primarily Power of Sale (Force you to sell the property) and outright seizure.   In order to do this, title needs to be clear, which it isn't if you have half title. However, if you have a sales agreement, you can buy your brother's half, and then mortgage the entire property.  This happens all the time.  When you buy a house from someone, you get pre-approved for that house, which, at the time, you have no title to.   Through some black magic lawyering and handwaving, this is all sorted out at closing time.
Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did ""not amount to much"" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share.
"Your actual question is a bit confusing, but parts of it are answerable. If your parents give you cash to buy a home, you use it for a cash sale, and you then repay them, then if they don't charge you interest (above and beyond any they may pay - treat their loan as entirely separate from yours.) that amount of not-charged interest is considered a gift. You can look up these rates here, on the IRS website, called ""Applicable Federal Rates""; currently it's around 2.30% APR. If the interest is that much, the interest isn't a gift, but part of a loan - though your parents will have to file some paperwork and you will also. Search for more information about ""Intra-Family Loans"" for full details - and talk to a real estate lawyer. Separately, if your parents are the primary/only signors on the mortgage, and are thus effectively the property owner, there are two separate issues. First, you're welcome to pay off the mortgage while you live there, and no tax issues exist (then) in terms of gift, though it's still owned in your parents' name - so you don't get the house, they'd have to gift that to you separately, though they can do that in stages to avoid gift tax ($14k worth of equity per year, or whatever the current year's annual limit is, per parent and per you/wife if applicable). H&R Block discusses the concept of Equitable Ownership, which determines who is able to take the property tax and mortgage interest deductions on the house. Tax Almanac goes into a bit more detail on the subject. Ultimately, another issue for a real estate attorney probably (or at least a CPA or tax attorney): you need to be very careful if you're going to try and get the tax deductions (which would be probably far more than the savings of a half percent of interest rate or whatnot). In general, there are a lot of options for exactly how you structure the purchase, payments, and equity, and you should talk to a professional to find out exactly the right way to structure it. This mortgage info site has some good tips for several different ways to structure things, just as an example.
We have a house here in India worth Rs. 2 Crores. We want to sell it and take money with us.  Selling the house in India will attract Capital Gains Tax. Essentially the price at which you sell the property less of the property was purchased [or deemed value when inherited by you]. The difference is Capital Gains. You have to pay tax on this gains. This is currently at 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation.  Please note if you hold these funds for more than an year, you would additionally be liable for Wealth tax at 1% above Rs 50 lacs. Can I gift this whole amount to my US Citizen Daughter or what is the   maximum limit of Gift amount   What will be the tax liability on me and on my Daughter in case of Gift   Whether I have to show it in my Income Tax Return or in my Daughter's Tax Return. What US Income Tax Laws says.   What will be the procedure to send money as Gift to my Daughter.   Assuming you are still Indian citizen when to gift the funds; From Indian tax point of you there is no tax to you. As you daughter is US citizen, there is no gift tax to her. There is no limit in India or US. So you can effectively gift the entire amount without any taxes. If you transfer this after you become a US Resident [for tax purposes], then there is a limit of USD 14,000/- per year per recipient. Effective you can gift your daughter and son-in-law 14,000/- ea and your husband can do the same. Net 14,000 * 4 USD per year. Beyond this you either pay tax or declare this and deduct it from life time estate quota. Again there is no tax for your daughter. What are the routes to take money from India to US   Will the money will go directly from my Bank Act.to my Daughter's Bank Account.   Will there will be wire transfer from bank to bank   Can I send money through other money sender Certified Companies also. The best way is via Bank to Bank transfer. A CA Certificate is required to certify that taxes have been paid on this funds being transferred. Under the liberalized remittance scheme in India, there is a limit of USD 1 Million per year for moving funds outside of India. So you can move around Rs 6-7 Crore a year.
An issue with the initial plan was that the house was gifted to you. Therefore you owned it. Now two years later you wanted to get a mortgage. The IRS would look at it as a home equity debt not a home Acquisition debt, and the interest on the first $100,000 of home equity dept is deductible. This is from IRS pub 936 Mortgage treated as used to buy, build, or improve home.   A mortgage   secured by a qualified home may be treated as home acquisition debt,   even if you do not actually use the proceeds to buy, build, or   substantially improve the home. This applies in the following   situations. You buy your home within 90 days before or after the date you take out the mortgage. The home acquisition debt is limited to the home's   cost, plus the cost of any substantial improvements within the limit   described below in (2) or (3). (See Example 1 later.) You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage before the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the   amount of the expenses incurred within 24 months before the date of   the mortgage. You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage within 90 days after the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited   to the amount of the expenses incurred within the period beginning 24   months before the work is completed and ending on the date of the   mortgage. (See Example 2 later.) Example 1. You bought your main home on June 3 for $175,000. You paid for the   home with cash you got from the sale of your old home. On July 15, you   took out a mortgage of $150,000 secured by your main home. You used   the $150,000 to invest in stocks. You can treat the mortgage as taken   out to buy your home because you bought the home within 90 days before   you took out the mortgage. The entire mortgage qualifies as home   acquisition debt because it was not more than the home's cost. At two years you would be way outside the 90 day limit. The pub also gives example on how calculate the amount of interest you can deduct.
Absolutely, it can. Just look at Vancouver and how Chinese millionaires made the housing market virtually unaffordable to the average citizen. Vancouver passed a new taxation law and now these immigrants are migrating down to Washington doing the same thing: http://q13fox.com/2017/05/10/more-chinese-investors-buying-up-puget-sound-affecting-housing-market-as-a-whole/
No, at least not with specific houses. When I bought my current house, our realtor looked at the previous selling price of this house, along with the prices at which it had been placed on the market. These values influenced the amount we offered for the house. I'm sure it also influenced the amount the house had been listed at.
It's not typically possible for someone to jointly own the house, who is not also jointly liable for the mortgage. This doesn't matter however, because it is possible for two people to get a mortgage together, where only one person's income is assessed by the lender. If that person could get a mortgage of that amount on their own, then the couple should also be able to get the same mortgage. Source: My wife and I got a mortgage like this. She is self-employed, rather than meet the very high requirements for proving her self-employment income, we simply said that we only wanted my income to be taken into consideration.