The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Financial Planning / Tax Strategies

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/bob78164-i-do-not-believe-this-requirement-can-be-14434598.aspx

Subject:  Re: One more time! Please help!! Date:  2/27/2001  8:48 AM
Author:  JABoa Number:  47310 of 121061

Bob78164:I do not believe this requirement can be pro-rated.

Time to flog Dobbin again.

If you fail to meet the customary 2 year requirement, then you can pro-rate if you left because of a job change. The question I raised was if the qualifying time of pro-ration disappears on a sliding scale, as the 5 year window moves forward.

Let's take a hypothetical example. It's hypothetical because it's mostly false, but there are elements of truth to it. A homeowner, let's call him JBBoa, has lived in his place as his principal residence for many years. He gets laid off and has to move to Ruffalo to get a new job that allows him to do important things, like eat. He rents the place out. All is well for 5 years: if he sells he can take the full exclusion.

Now, let time advance 7 months, and JBBoa sells. Did JBBoa live in his place for 2 of the last 5 years? No he didn't, he only lived in it for 24 - 7 = 17 months of the last 5 years. Did he have to move because of a job change? Yes he did. Is he therefore entitled to a pro-ration of the exclusion, in the ratio 17/24? I think so, but <insert my usual disclaimer here>.

If JBBoa had not moved to Ruffalo for job-related purposes, but merely because the cost of living is a lot cheaper in Ruffalo than it is in Roston, then it's clear to me there would be no exclusion at all after the 5 years and 7 months of the previous paragraph.
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us