1635976943342574 UA-72458003-1 google-site-verification=bpkXPmzUUBtm0pA_hz68HRCFRNqdIA9eF18eNT7U93w Why Fodor's Travel Says The 'Best Traces of Hip-Hop Culture Are Found Everywhere in Oakland' https://youtu.be/aTsDXAtfXdI

1st Half of 2019 – California Housing Affordability

2019-Q2 CA Housing Affordability – https://lnkd.in/eE2k2_J

The percentage of home buyers who could afford to purchase a median-priced, existing single-family home in California in second-quarter 2019 dipped to 30% from 32% in the first quarter of 2019 but was up from 26% in the second quarter a year ago, according to C.A.R.’s Traditional Housing Affordability Index (HAI). California’s housing affordability index hit a peak of 56 percent in the second quarter of 2012.

C.A.R.’s HAI measures the percentage of all households that can afford to purchase a median-priced, single-family home in California. C.A.R. also reports affordability indices for regions and select counties within the state. The index is considered the most fundamental measure of housing well-being for home buyers in the state.

A minimum annual income of $122,960 was needed to qualify for the purchase of a $608,660 statewide median-priced, existing single-family home in the second quarter of 2019. The monthly payment, including taxes and insurance on a 30-year, fixed-rate loan, would be $3,070, assuming a 20% down payment and an effective composite interest rate of 4.17%. composite interest rate was 4.62% in first-quarter 2019 and 4.70% 2Q-19

🏠 LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL A HOME IN THE EAST BAY?
🏠 Visit: www.carlosfcamargo.net | Call: 510.798.5016

#BHGRE #CarlosFCamargoPhD #RealEstate #RealEstateAgent#RealEstateBroker #RealEstateLife #NoPlaceLikeHome_EastBay#OaklandCA #Realtor

Posted on August 30, 2019 at 9:10 PM
Carlos Camargo | Category: Buying a House, Credit & Home Finance, Español - Comprar Vivienda, First-time Buyer, N.A.R. - C.A.R. Update, Real Estate Market Update

Select East Bay County & City Buyer’s Guides – July 2019

Let me help you navigate the East Bay real estate market!
🏠__Visit: www.carlosfcamargo.net | Call: 510.798.5016 🏠

Posted on August 20, 2019 at 12:42 AM
Carlos Camargo | Category: Buying a House, First-time Buyer, N.A.R. - C.A.R. Update, Real Estate Market Update

June 2019 Sales Statistics for ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA – SFRs & Condos

June 2019 Sales Statistics for ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA 
(Single-Family Home)- http://rereport.com/alc/

June 2019 Sales Statistics for ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA – SFRs & Condos

(Condos/Town Homes)- http://rereport.com/alc/

🏠___

Let me help you navigate the East Bay real estate market! Visit: www.carlosfcamargo.net | Call: 510.798.5016

#BHGRE #CarlosFCamargoPhD #RealEstate #RealEstateAgent #RealEstateBroker #RealEstateLife #NoPlaceLikeHome_EastBay #OaklandCA #Realtor #RealEstateForSale #RealEstateExpert #Broker #HomeForSale #HouseForSale #PropertyForSale #realestatemarket #HouseHunting #ExpectBetter #BHGRealEstate #bayarea #BHGReliancePartners #contracostacounty #alamedacounty #reliancepartnersbhgre #RealEstateLifeStyle #RealEstateTips

Posted on July 18, 2019 at 9:45 PM
Carlos Camargo | Category: N.A.R. - C.A.R. Update, Real Estate Market Update

Monthly Market Report | EAST BAY | June 2019

🏠___
Let me help you navigate the East Bay real estate market!
Visit: www.carlosfcamargo.net | Call: 510.798.5016

Posted on July 18, 2019 at 8:58 PM
Carlos Camargo | Category: N.A.R. - C.A.R. Update, Real Estate Market Update

December 2018 County Sales and Price Activity Report

December 2018 County Sales and Price Activity

https://www.car.org/aboutus/mediacenter/newsreleases/2018releases/december2018sales
California home sales close year on downward trend as home prices post mild gains, C.A.R. reports
 
– Existing, single-family home sales totaled 372,260 in December on a seasonally adjusted annualized rate, down 2.4 percent from November and down 11.6 percent from December 2017.
 
– December’s statewide median home price was $557,600, down 0.5 percent from November and up 1.5 percent from December 2017.
 
– Statewide active listings rose for the ninth straight month, increasing 30.6 percent from the previous year.
 
– The statewide Unsold Inventory Index was 3.5 months in December, down from 3.7 months in November.
 
– For the year as a whole, sales were down 5.2 percent from 2017.
 
_____
LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL A HOME? www.carlosfcamargo.net
 
#BHGRE #carlosfcamargophd #RealEstate #RealEstateAgent #RealEstateBroker #RealEstateInvestor #RealEstateInvesting #RealEstateLife #RealEstateForSale #RealEstateExpert #Realtor #Realty #Broker #HomeForSale #HouseForSale #PropertyForSale #HouseHunting #HouseHunt #ExpectBetter #BHGRealEstate #BHGReliancePartners #BHGGrandLake #LakeMerritt #bayarea #oakland
 
 
Posted on January 17, 2019 at 11:34 PM
Carlos Camargo | Category: N.A.R. - C.A.R. Update, Real Estate Market Update

NOVEMBER 2018 – CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE MARKET SNAPSHOT:

Market Shifting….But Don’t Panic!

Over the past 5 months, the evidence for a shift in the market has mounted. Sales are on the decline, with September 2018 falling by the largest margin since March of 2014. Homes are staying on the market longer as the median number of days on market has risen to 23. Sellers are beginning to have to discount their properties again, with a median sales-to-list price of 98.5% and 42% of active listings having some form of a price reduction. Inventory was also up more than 20% last month, to the highest level in more than two years. As a result, price growth has slowed to just 4.2% in September—a marked deceleration from the 8-9% that prevailed during the first half of 2018.

 

Posted on November 8, 2018 at 8:14 PM
Carlos Camargo | Category: N.A.R. - C.A.R. Update

August 2018 Market Updates for Bay Area Real Estate Markets from C.A.R.

● Looking to buy/sell a home in the East Bay? www.carlosfcamargo.net

● What’s my home worth? www.carlosfcamargo.com

● Call or Text: #5107985016CFC

#ExpectBetter #BHGRealEstate #BHGReliancePartners #BHGGrandLake #LakeMerritt #GrandAvenue #realestate #brokers #realtor #listingagent #buyersagent #californialiving #bayarea #oakland #needabiggerhouse #condo #home #land #mortgage #househunting #moving #homesale #forsale #homesweethome #noplacelikehome_eastbay #hayward #realestatetrends

Posted on September 19, 2018 at 11:15 PM
Carlos Camargo | Category: N.A.R. - C.A.R. Update

COUNTY RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE MARKET UPDATE – Jan. 2018 Sales Reports from C.A.R.

COUNTY RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE MARKET UPDATE – DECEMBER 2017 STATS FROM C.A.R.

December 2017 County Sales and Price Activity

(Regional and condo sales data not seasonally adjusted)
https://www.car.org/aboutus/mediacenter/newsreleases/2018releases/dec2017sales

 

– Amid the lowest housing inventory levels in more than 13 years, existing home sales still eked out a year-over-year gain, while the median sales price posted a solid annual increase: 

– California home price closes year on high note as sales moderate in December; housing market posts solid performance in 2017, C.A.R. reports

– Existing, single-family home sales totaled 420,960 in December on a seasonally adjusted annualized rate, down 4.4 percent from November and up 1.4 percent from December 2016.

– December’s statewide median home price was $549,560, up 0.5 percent from November and up 7.6 percent from December 2016.

– Housing inventory hit the lowest level observed in 13 years, with the unsold inventory index falling to 2.5 months in December.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Monthly Stats from C.A.R.

ALAMEDA COUNTY 
Median sales price: $862,000
Unsold inventory: 1 month
Days on Market: 13 days

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Median sales price: $600,000
Unsold inventory: 1.4 month
Days on Market: 16 days

San Francisco County
Median sales price: $1,475,000

Unsold inventory: 1 month
Days on Market: 18 days

Santa Clara County
Median sales price: $1,300,000
Unsold inventory: .9 month (27 days)
Days on Market: 9 days

Posted on January 25, 2018 at 11:10 PM
Carlos Camargo | Category: N.A.R. - C.A.R. Update, Real Estate Market Update

C.A.R. Opposes Measure to Expand Rent Control

C.A.R. Opposes Measure to Expand Rent Control

The California Association of Realtors (C.A.R.) opposes AB 1506 (Bloom, Bonta and Chiu), which repeals C.A.R.’s co-sponsored Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in its entirety.  Costa-Hawkins was enacted in 1995 in response to unchecked local rent control ordinances. Costa-Hawkins places limits on how and when local governments may impose rent control ordinances and specifically prohibits rent control from being placed on condos and single-family homes. AB 1506 would allow rent control to be enacted without limitation, discouraging the creation of rental housing and impairing housing affordability. AB 1506 will be considered by the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on Thursday, January 11th.

Background
Costa-Hawkins gives landlords the authority to establish initial rent upon a unit’s voluntary vacancy by the prior tenant, exempts single-family homes and condos, and prohibits rent control on all new construction. If Costa-Hawkins is repealed, cities and counties in California could adopt rent control measures without limitation.

History has demonstrated that rent control does more h­­­­arm than good. Affordability in rent control municipalities such as Berkeley, San Francisco and Los Angeles has not improved. In fact, affordability is worse in these jurisdictions, and the lack of supply is clearly the driving force behind why rental housing prices continue to climb. AB 1506 would be devastating to California’s ongoing housing crisis and would have very serious and harmful consequences to our economy.

C.A.R. OPPOSES AB 1506 BECAUSE:

  • It Repeals the Rent Control Exemption for Single-Family Homes and Condos – AB 1506 would expand rent control to single-family homes and condominiums, discouraging rental property owners from continuing to offer properties for rent.
  • It Discourages New Housing Construction – New housing development would come to a standstill.  In a recent report, the Legislative Analyst concluded that “rent control will do nothing to increase our supply of affordable housing and, in fact, likely would discourage new construction.”
  • It Targets Family Owned-and-Operated Small Businesses – The majority of California’s rental units are located within small properties (16 units or less) and are owned by “mom and pop” landlords who depend on these properties for their retirement. 
  • It Provides NIMBYs a New Tool – AB 1506 is a dream come true for NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) advocates, who want to stop new housing development in California. In fact, one of the same proponents of the prospective companion ballot measure also sponsored a Los Angeles ballot measure last year to stop ALL housing construction in the city.
  • It Hurts Low-Income Individuals & Families – Rent-controlled units are NOT means tested. Numerous studies have shown that, while rent control seeks to help low-income tenants, gentrification in strict rent control cities occurs, resulting in more renters with higher incomes after the implementation of these ordinances. According to the Legislative Analyst, rent control would continue to “benefit the more affluent renters.”
  • It Lowers the Number of Available Rental Units – Not only would AB 1506 halt new housing construction, it would also result in a loss of rental units throughout the State. Cities with stringent forms of rent control, such as San Francisco and Santa Monica, have lost large numbers of rental units because of rent control. Rental property owners convert their housing to another use – owner-occupied, tenancies in common – or keep their units off the market altogether.   

 

For a contrarian view please visit:
www.beyondchron.org/will-voters-repeal-costa-hawkins-2018

WILL VOTERS REPEAL COSTA-HAWKINS IN 2018?

Can A Repeal Initiative Win?

Let’s assume Tom Steyer was willing to put $25 million dollars into a repeal initiative for the 2018 or 2020 ballot. Or some other donor lacking the baggage of Michael Weinstein. Let’s also assume that the coalition to pass it was led by state and local labor officials, housing groups, and a broad progressive constituency.

Could such a measure win?

The final two of my five rules for winning measures are “Keep it Simple” and “Appeal to Voters’ Self-Interest.” A strict repeal measure, which is what ACCE has submitted, meets the simplicity test. The real question, as it is for most measures, is whether Costa-Hawkins repeal serves the self-interest of a significant portion of the electorate.

A majority of California’s electorate in November 2018 or 2020 will not be covered by rent control. This includes the vast majority of homeowners (some are also landlords) and a sizable minority if not majority of tenants.

Under a best case scenario, Costa-Hawkins repeal wins 65-35 in San Francisco, Berkeley, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Richmond and Oakland. It goes 55-45 in Los Angeles city, San Jose and Mountain View. These are all rent control jurisdictions where tenants will benefit from repeal.

But San Diego is not passing repeal. The Central Valley? Good luck. Sacramento may have a local rent control measure on the 2018 or 2020 ballot, so repeal could win there. Rural California will go against repeal in droves. As will be the result in all the parts of the state where there is little tenant activism but plenty of realtors and landlords.

Costa-Hawkins is so lucrative for landlords that I could easily see $100 million poured into the anti-repeal campaign. Money will come in from around the world to preserve California’s high rents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on January 4, 2018 at 7:07 PM
Carlos Camargo | Category: N.A.R. - C.A.R. Update

N.A.R. Update 2018: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – What it Means for Homeowners and Real Estate Professionals

N.A.R. Update 2018: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

What it Means for Homeowners and Real Estate Professionals

While NAR remains concerned that the overall structure of the final bill diminishes the tax benefits of homeownership and will cause adverse impacts in some markets, the advocacy of NAR members, as well as consumers, helped NAR to gain some important improvements throughout the legislative process. The final legislation will benefit many homeowners, homebuyers, real estate investors, and NAR members as a result.

The final bill includes some big successes. NAR efforts helped save the exclusion for capital gains on the sale of a home and preserved the like-kind exchange for real property. Many agents and brokers who earn income as independent contractors or from pass-through businesses will see a significant deduction on that business income.

As a result of the changes made throughout the legislative process, NAR is now projecting slower growth in home prices of 1-3% in 2018 as low inventories continue to spur price gains. However, some local markets, particularly in high cost, higher tax areas, will likely see price declines as a result of the legislation’s new restrictions on mortgage interest and state and local taxes.

The following is a summary of provisions of interest to NAR and its members. NAR will be providing ongoing updates and guidance to members in the coming weeks, as well as working with Congress and the Administration to address additional concerns through future legislation and rulemaking. Lawmakers have already signaled a desire to fine tune elements of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well as address additional tax provisions not included in this legislation in 2018, and REALTORS® will need to continue to be engaged in the process.

The examples provided are for illustrative purposes and based on a preliminary reading of the final legislation as of December 20, 2017. Individuals should consult a tax professional about their own personal situation.

All individual provisions are generally effective after December 31, 2017 for the 2018 tax filing year and expire on December 31, 2025 unless otherwise noted. The provisions do not affect tax filings for 2017 unless noted.

Major Provisions Affecting Current and Prospective Homeowners

Tax Rate Reductions

  • The new law provides generally lower tax rates for all individual tax filers. While this does not mean that every American will pay lower taxes under these changes, many will. The total size of the tax cut from the rate reductions equals more than $1.2 trillion over ten years.
  • The tax rate schedule retains seven brackets with slightly lower marginal rates of 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37%.
  • The final bill retains the current-law maximum rates on net capital gains (generally, 15% maximum rate but 20% for those in the highest tax bracket; 25% rate on “recapture” of depreciation from real property).

 

Tax Brackets for Ordinary Income Under Current Law and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2018 Tax Year) Single Filer

 

Current Law Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
10% $0-$9,525 10% $0 – $9,525
15% $9,525 – $38,700 12% $9,525 – $38,700
25% $38,700 – $93,700 22% $38,700 – $82,500
28% $93,700 – $195,450 24% $82,500 – $157,500
33% $195,450 – $424,950 32% $157,500 – $200,000
35% $424,950 – $426,700 35% $200,000 – $500,000
39.6% $426,700+ 37% $500,000

 

Tax Brackets for Ordinary Income Under Current Law and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2018 Tax Year) Married Filing Jointly

 

Current Law Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
10% $0 – $19,050 10% $0 – $19,050
15% $19,050 – $77,400 12% $19,050 – $77,400
25% $77,400 – $156,150 22% $77,400 – $165,000
28% $156,150 – $237,950 24% $165,000 – $315,000
33% $237,950 – $424,950 32% $315,000 – $400,000
35% $424,950 – $480,050 35% $400,000 – $600,000
39.6% $480,050+ 37% $600,000+

Exclusion of Gain on Sale of a Principal Residence

  • The final bill retains current law. A significant victory in the final bill that NAR achieved.
  • The Senate-passed bill would have changed the amount of time a homeowner must live in their home to qualify for the capital gains exclusion from 2 out of the past 5 years to 5 out of the past 8 years. The House bill would have made this same change as well as phased out the exclusion for taxpayers with incomes above $250,000 single/$500,000 married.

Mortgage Interest Deduction

  • The final bill reduces the limit on deductible mortgage debt to $750,000 for new loans taken out after 12/14/17. Current loans of up to $1 million are grandfathered and are not subject to the new $750,000 cap. Neither limit is indexed for inflation.
  • Homeowners may refinance mortgage debts existing on 12/14/17 up to $1 million and still deduct the interest, so long as the new loan does not exceed the amount of the mortgage being refinanced.
  • The final bill repeals the deduction for interest paid on home equity debt through 12/31/25. Interest is still deductible on home equity loans (or second mortgages) if the proceeds are used to substantially improve the residence.
  • Interest remains deductible on second homes, but subject to the $1 million / $750,000 limits.
  • The House-passed bill would have capped the mortgage interest limit at $500,000 and eliminated the deduction for second homes.

Deduction for State and Local Taxes

  • The final bill allows an itemized deduction of up to $10,000 for the total of state and local property taxes and income or sales taxes. This $10,000 limit applies for both single and married filers and is not indexed for inflation.
  • The final bill also specifically precludes the deduction of 2018 state and local income taxes prepaid in 2017.
  • When House and Senate bills were first introduced, the deduction for state and local taxes would have been completely eliminated. The House and Senate passed bills would have allowed property taxes to be deducted up to $10,000. The final bill, while less beneficial than current law, represents a significant improvement over the original proposals.

Standard Deduction

  • The final bill provides a standard deduction of $12,000 for single individuals and $24,000 for joint returns. The new standard deduction is indexed for inflation.
  • By doubling the standard deduction, Congress has greatly reduced the value of the mortgage interest and property tax deductions as tax incentives for homeownership. Congressional estimates indicate that only 5-8% of filers will now be eligible to claim these deductions by itemizing, meaning there will be no tax differential between renting and owning for more than 90% of taxpayers.

Repeal of Personal Exemptions

  • Under the prior law, tax filers could deduct $4,150 in 2018 for the filer and his or her spouse, if any, and for each dependent. These exemptions have been repealed in the new law.
  • This change alone greatly mitigates (and in some cases entirely eliminates) the positive aspects of the higher standard deduction.

To illustrate how the above-listed changes can affect the tax incentives of owning a home for a first-time buyer and a middle-income family of five, please see these examples:

Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCCs)

  • The final bill retains current law.
  • The House-passed legislation would have repealed MCCs.

Deduction for Medical Expenses

  • The final bill retains the deduction for medical expenses (including decreasing the 10% floor to 7.5% floor for 2018).
  • The House bill would have eliminated the deduction for medical expenses.

Child Credit

  • The final bill increases the child tax credit to $2,000 from $1,000 and keeps the age limit at 16 and younger. The income phase-out to claim the child credit was increased significantly from ($55,000 single/$110,000 married) under current law to $500,000 for all filers in the final bill.

Student Loan Interest Deduction

  • The final bill retains current law, allowing deductibility of student loan debt up to $2,500, subject to income phase-outs.
  • The House bill would have eliminated the deduction for interest on student loans.

Deduction for Casualty Losses

  • The final bill provides a deduction only if a loss is attributable to a presidentially-declared disaster.
  • The House bill would have eliminated the deduction for casualty losses with limited exceptions.

Moving Expenses

  • The final bill repeals moving expense deduction and exclusion, except for members of the Armed Forces.
  • The House-introduced bill would have eliminated the moving expense deduction for all filers, including military.


 

Major Provisions Affecting Commercial Real Estate

Like-Kind Exchanges

  • The final bill retains the current Section 1031 Like Kind Exchange rules for real property. It repeals the use of Section 1031 for personal property, such as art work, auto fleets, heavy equipment, etc.
  • The exclusion of real estate from the repeal of 1031 like-kind exchanges is a major victory for real estate stakeholders, who had fought hard to preserve the provision for several years, and against long odds.

Carried Interest

  • The final bill includes the House and Senate language requiring a 3-year holding period to qualify for current-law (capital gains) treatment.
  • Again, real estate stakeholders prevailed against long odds to preserve the incentive of capital gains treatment for carried interests in the final legislation.

Cost Recovery (Depreciation)

  • The final bill retains the current recovery periods for nonresidential real property (39 years), residential rental property (27.5 years) and qualified improvements (15 years). The bill also replaces separate definitions for qualified Restaurant, Leasehold, and Retail improvements with one definition of “Qualified Improvement Property.”

Qualified Private Activity Bonds

  • The final bill retains the deductibility of qualified private activity bonds used in constructing affordable housing, local transportation and infrastructure projects and for state and local mortgage bond programs.
  • The House bill would have eliminated the use of private activity bonds.

Low Income Housing Tax Credit

  • The final bill retains current law. However, a lower corporate rate will negatively impact the value of the credits in the future, and will result in less low-income housing being developed.

Rehabilitation Credit (Historic Tax Credit)

  • The final bill repeals the current-law 10% credit for pre-1936 buildings, but retains the current 20% credit for certified historic structures (but modified so the credit is allowable over a 5-year period based on a ratable share (20%) each year).
  • The House bill would have entirely eliminated the Historic Rehabilitation Credit.

Provisions Not Included in the Final Bill

Rental Income Subject to Self-Employment Tax

  • The House-introduced bill would have subjected rental income to self-employment taxes. This provision was dropped from the House (and final) bill.
     

Major Provisions Affecting Real Estate Professionals

Deduction for Qualified Business Income

Because the new tax bill greatly decreases the tax rate for corporations (from the prior law’s 35% to just 21%), many Members of Congress believed that the business income earned by sole proprietors, such as independent contractors, as well as by pass-through businesses, such as partnerships, limited liability companies (LLCs), and S corporations, should also receive tax rate reductions. In addition to lower marginal tax rates, the final bill provides a significant up-front (above the line[1]) deduction of 20% for business income earned by many of these businesses, but with certain conditions.

Specifically, the bill limits the 20% deduction to non-personal service businesses.Essentially, a personal service business is one involving the performance of services in the following fields:

Health, Law, Consulting, Athletics, Financial Services, Brokerage Services (not real estate), and “Any business where the main asset of the business is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners.”

It seems clear that most real estate agents and brokers will be considered in a personal service business and would thus not normally qualify for the 20% deduction.

However, NAR was able to help secure a major exception (the personal service income exception) in the final bill that will make it possible for many real estate professionals to be able to take advantage of the deduction.

  • This exception provides that if the business owner has taxable income of less than $157,500 (for single taxpayers) or $315,000 (for couples filing jointly), then the personal service restriction will not apply.
  • Above this level of income, the benefit of the 20% deduction is phased out over an income range of $50,000 for singles and an income range of $100,000 for couples[2].
  • For those with non-personal service income above these thresholds, the bill provides a second exception that may still allow a full or limited 20% deduction. This second exception (the wage and capital limit exception)places a limit on the deduction of the greater of:
    • 50% of the W-2 wages paid by the business, or
    • The total of 25% of the W-2 wages paid by the business plus 2.5% of the cost basis of the tangible depreciable property of the business at the end of the year.

 


Federal Individual Income Tax Rates for High-Income Earners, 2017 vs. 2018

 

Federal Individual Income Tax Rates for Middle-Income Earners, 2017 vs. 2018

Federal Individual Income Tax Rates for Low-Income Earners, 2017 vs. 2018

 

Bottom Line: Independent contractors and pass-through business owners with personal service income, including real estate agents and brokers, with taxable income below the $157,500 or $315,000 thresholds may generally claim the full 20% deduction under the personal service income exception. Independent contractors and pass-through business owners with non-personal service income and total taxable income below these thresholds may also claim the full 20% qualified business income deduction. In addition, independent contractors (or other sole proprietors) with non-personal service incomes above these thresholds may also be able to claim a 20% deduction, but that deduction may be limited by the wage and capital limit exception.

The House and Senate started out with significantly different approaches to lowering the tax rate on qualified business income from sole proprietors and pass-through entities. The House bill featured a top rate approach while the Senate offered a deduction, which was set at 23% in the Senate bill. The House approach offered flexibility in allowing businesses with significant capital invested or wages paid. The final provision reflects a compromise between the different approaches. The provision generally follows the Senate proposal, but, at the request of the House, includes an additional factor related to the level of capital investment in the business.

 

Posted on January 4, 2018 at 12:03 AM
Carlos Camargo | Category: N.A.R. - C.A.R. Update