![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Leads to something unrelated to this subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.16.77 ( talk) 01:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Nonrecourse debt and Non-recourse debt seem to be the same thing. Decide on which term is better and we can merge it there. Ted 01:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Add here if you want this the main article. Use "*" for each line for proper formatting.
Use Nonrecourse debt
Add here if you want this the main article. Use "*" for each line for proper formatting.
Famspear, Thanks for taking a crack at cleaning up the discussion of Crane, Tufts and Woodsam in nonrecourse debt. But it still doesn't make sense. Could you take another look? When are we talking about the creditor, and when are we talking about the debtor? Boundlessly 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree; I have done a semi-major reworking, and eliminated some of the confusing language. Yours, Famspear 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Famspear, excellent job! I was in progress of doing the exact same kind of edit. When I tried to save it I got the error message of someone else editing the section. EECavazos 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Boundlessly: Subsequent borrowing against the property (after you own it), using the property as collateral, has no effect on basis in the property. Remember, even the original financing ITSELF has no direct effect on basis. The reason that borrowing money indirectly gives you basis is that you INVEST THE LOAN PROCEEDS in the property itself.
Think of it as accounting debits and credits.
Original purchase, at 100% financing, of a $100,000 property:
Debit: Investment in property $100,000 Credit: Loan payable $100,000
Subsequent borrowing of, say, $5,000, using the property as collateral, and using the $5,000 to take a Las Vegas vacation:
Debit: Cash (or non-deductible personal living expenses - vacation) 5,000 Credit: Loan payable 5,000
Since the $5,000 didn't go into the property, it doesn't affect basis. Essentially, it's the DEBIT side of the entry that gives you basis, not the credit side. Yours, Famspear 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear whoever wrote this,
this section is meaningless,
basis refers to the income tax related costs of a property minus any receipts that are not income.
It has nothing to do with financing.
Example: If you buy a house for $200,000 and make an addition to the house costing $60,000,
your basis is $260,000.
When you sell the property you subtract your basis from the sales price.
If the profit is less than $250,000 for a single person and other tests are met,
no tax is due.
If the profit is more than $250,000, the amount over $250,000 is taxable capital gains.
Simple remodeling or maintenance is not a capital addition that would add to basis.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.16.77 ( talk • contribs)
I removed that from the first paragraph because non-recourse lending is supposed to remove the borrower's ability to pay or lack thereof from the equation entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.118.176 ( talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have again removed spam edits and links that continue to be added/reverted despite repeated requests for discussion. Edit summaries are not substitutes for discussion, and ongoing willful ignorance of Wikipedia policies is wearing thin. Flowanda | Talk 07:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The association part is not mine, so I removed it, it did look like spam. However, all other links are verified by myself, an attorney barred in PA and NJ, as well as by existing public documents and case law that I reference on my website. It is not willful ignorance, I understand the Wikipedia policies. Nevertheless, all information asserted on my website is independently verifiable, drafted by an attorney and references legal scholarly work. -- Schytzophrenic ( talk) 20:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Has anybody looked at the second paragraph of this page? It sounds like one person's personal attack on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.244.198 ( talk) 19:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Nuked it along with all other mention of lawsuit financing. The opening sentence was worded to imply that "nonrecourse loans" and "lawsuit loans" are the two major kinds of loans, which is simply wrong. There is no reason for lawsuit loans to be mentioned here. 69.107.204.78 ( talk) 05:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Article states that mortgage debt forgiveness is enforced in much of Europe after eviction - taken from the source at n.2 - but the source is very brief on what is a complicated point.
(new entry, the above was not signed) Agreed, this should be removed, unless more details and sources are given. In Germany, the biggest economy in the EU, nonrecourse loans without personal liability are unknown, and forgiveness after eviction is also basically unknown. Any remaining debt after foreclosure stands for 30 years. There is of course a private insolvency/bankruptcy system with a 6 year period during which every cent above a certain minimal income goes to the creditors. Also, AFAIK, there are states in the US that do not allow non-recourse loans. Is there anyone who has more details on this and can add something? This seems very essential information and is of course highly relevant after since the housing crisis in the US.... 87.78.8.224 ( talk) 18:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Commonly referred to as the one-action rule, section 726(a) most obviously aims to prevent a real property secured creditor from suing the defaulting debtor on the indebtedness itself prior to foreclosing on the security interest. If the debtor in the situation described does not raise the one-action rule as an affirmative defense and if the creditor obtains a personal judgment on the debt, the one-action rule would forever bar the creditor from foreclosing on the security interest.
We may want to think about weakening the statement herein. Maybe "it has been said that" or something, given that the reference is weak, and the assertion is seriously in question. Int21h ( talk) 21:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Nonrecourse liability should be merged into this article. Its only source is a codified federal regulation, and I don't think its a subject fit for its own article. Int21h ( talk) 19:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no significant difference between the two terms and, yes, the two articles should be merged. Famspear ( talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Bah. I'm not even sure if that article can be "merged". It merely cites a regulation concerning taxation and partnership liabilities vis-a-vis "at risk" recourse/nonrecourse debt. The regulation cited does not even say anything important other than define the term by reference. I say we merge it by just redirecting it here. Int21h ( talk) 05:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure this statement - or the source quoted - is accurate. Here is an article published by the St. Louis Fed implying that most European mortgages are recourse debt - ie, not forgiven.
First time editing anything on Wikipedia, so apologize for breaches of etiquette Mfriedrichs12 ( talk) 13:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nonrecourse debt/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==WP Tax Class==
Start class because needs more citations. Could also be globalized. EECavazos 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Mid priority because important concept and probably applicable in many different countries. EECavazos 06:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 06:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Recourse debt is quite short, and mostly repeats what is said here. This makes sense as recourse debt is simply the opposite of non-recourse debt.
So I propose merging the article "Recourse debt" into this article. Sebastian ( talk) 11:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Leads to something unrelated to this subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.16.77 ( talk) 01:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Nonrecourse debt and Non-recourse debt seem to be the same thing. Decide on which term is better and we can merge it there. Ted 01:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Add here if you want this the main article. Use "*" for each line for proper formatting.
Use Nonrecourse debt
Add here if you want this the main article. Use "*" for each line for proper formatting.
Famspear, Thanks for taking a crack at cleaning up the discussion of Crane, Tufts and Woodsam in nonrecourse debt. But it still doesn't make sense. Could you take another look? When are we talking about the creditor, and when are we talking about the debtor? Boundlessly 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree; I have done a semi-major reworking, and eliminated some of the confusing language. Yours, Famspear 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Famspear, excellent job! I was in progress of doing the exact same kind of edit. When I tried to save it I got the error message of someone else editing the section. EECavazos 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Boundlessly: Subsequent borrowing against the property (after you own it), using the property as collateral, has no effect on basis in the property. Remember, even the original financing ITSELF has no direct effect on basis. The reason that borrowing money indirectly gives you basis is that you INVEST THE LOAN PROCEEDS in the property itself.
Think of it as accounting debits and credits.
Original purchase, at 100% financing, of a $100,000 property:
Debit: Investment in property $100,000 Credit: Loan payable $100,000
Subsequent borrowing of, say, $5,000, using the property as collateral, and using the $5,000 to take a Las Vegas vacation:
Debit: Cash (or non-deductible personal living expenses - vacation) 5,000 Credit: Loan payable 5,000
Since the $5,000 didn't go into the property, it doesn't affect basis. Essentially, it's the DEBIT side of the entry that gives you basis, not the credit side. Yours, Famspear 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear whoever wrote this,
this section is meaningless,
basis refers to the income tax related costs of a property minus any receipts that are not income.
It has nothing to do with financing.
Example: If you buy a house for $200,000 and make an addition to the house costing $60,000,
your basis is $260,000.
When you sell the property you subtract your basis from the sales price.
If the profit is less than $250,000 for a single person and other tests are met,
no tax is due.
If the profit is more than $250,000, the amount over $250,000 is taxable capital gains.
Simple remodeling or maintenance is not a capital addition that would add to basis.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.16.77 ( talk • contribs)
I removed that from the first paragraph because non-recourse lending is supposed to remove the borrower's ability to pay or lack thereof from the equation entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.118.176 ( talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have again removed spam edits and links that continue to be added/reverted despite repeated requests for discussion. Edit summaries are not substitutes for discussion, and ongoing willful ignorance of Wikipedia policies is wearing thin. Flowanda | Talk 07:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The association part is not mine, so I removed it, it did look like spam. However, all other links are verified by myself, an attorney barred in PA and NJ, as well as by existing public documents and case law that I reference on my website. It is not willful ignorance, I understand the Wikipedia policies. Nevertheless, all information asserted on my website is independently verifiable, drafted by an attorney and references legal scholarly work. -- Schytzophrenic ( talk) 20:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Has anybody looked at the second paragraph of this page? It sounds like one person's personal attack on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.244.198 ( talk) 19:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Nuked it along with all other mention of lawsuit financing. The opening sentence was worded to imply that "nonrecourse loans" and "lawsuit loans" are the two major kinds of loans, which is simply wrong. There is no reason for lawsuit loans to be mentioned here. 69.107.204.78 ( talk) 05:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Article states that mortgage debt forgiveness is enforced in much of Europe after eviction - taken from the source at n.2 - but the source is very brief on what is a complicated point.
(new entry, the above was not signed) Agreed, this should be removed, unless more details and sources are given. In Germany, the biggest economy in the EU, nonrecourse loans without personal liability are unknown, and forgiveness after eviction is also basically unknown. Any remaining debt after foreclosure stands for 30 years. There is of course a private insolvency/bankruptcy system with a 6 year period during which every cent above a certain minimal income goes to the creditors. Also, AFAIK, there are states in the US that do not allow non-recourse loans. Is there anyone who has more details on this and can add something? This seems very essential information and is of course highly relevant after since the housing crisis in the US.... 87.78.8.224 ( talk) 18:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Commonly referred to as the one-action rule, section 726(a) most obviously aims to prevent a real property secured creditor from suing the defaulting debtor on the indebtedness itself prior to foreclosing on the security interest. If the debtor in the situation described does not raise the one-action rule as an affirmative defense and if the creditor obtains a personal judgment on the debt, the one-action rule would forever bar the creditor from foreclosing on the security interest.
We may want to think about weakening the statement herein. Maybe "it has been said that" or something, given that the reference is weak, and the assertion is seriously in question. Int21h ( talk) 21:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Nonrecourse liability should be merged into this article. Its only source is a codified federal regulation, and I don't think its a subject fit for its own article. Int21h ( talk) 19:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no significant difference between the two terms and, yes, the two articles should be merged. Famspear ( talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Bah. I'm not even sure if that article can be "merged". It merely cites a regulation concerning taxation and partnership liabilities vis-a-vis "at risk" recourse/nonrecourse debt. The regulation cited does not even say anything important other than define the term by reference. I say we merge it by just redirecting it here. Int21h ( talk) 05:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure this statement - or the source quoted - is accurate. Here is an article published by the St. Louis Fed implying that most European mortgages are recourse debt - ie, not forgiven.
First time editing anything on Wikipedia, so apologize for breaches of etiquette Mfriedrichs12 ( talk) 13:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nonrecourse debt/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==WP Tax Class==
Start class because needs more citations. Could also be globalized. EECavazos 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Mid priority because important concept and probably applicable in many different countries. EECavazos 06:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 06:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Recourse debt is quite short, and mostly repeats what is said here. This makes sense as recourse debt is simply the opposite of non-recourse debt.
So I propose merging the article "Recourse debt" into this article. Sebastian ( talk) 11:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)