530 Buy Sell Trade
CLICK HERE ---> https://urlgoal.com/2tEdEb
Avionteq offers both new and refurbished or used Druck / GE Sensing ADTS-530 Air Data Test Set for sale or rent at most competitive price. All refurbished equipment are thoroughly tested and come with our warranty and fresh calibration certificate (when required). You can also sell your excess / surplus Druck / GE Sensing ADTS-530 or receive trade-in credit towards purchase of other test equipment.
Real estate taxes are generally divided so that you and the seller each pay taxes for the part of the property tax year you owned the home. Your share of these taxes is fully deductible if you itemize your deductions.
For federal income tax purposes, the seller is treated as paying the property taxes up to, but not including, the date of sale. You (the buyer) are treated as paying the taxes beginning with the date of sale. This applies regardless of the lien dates under local law. Generally, this information is included on the settlement statement you get at closing.
You bought your home on September 1. The property tax year (the period to which the tax relates) in your area is the calendar year. The tax for the year was $730 and was due and paid by the seller on August 15.
You can't deduct transfer taxes and similar taxes and charges on the sale of a personal home. If you are the buyer and you pay them, include them in the cost basis of the property. If you are the seller and you pay them, they are expenses of the sale and reduce the amount realized on the sale.
The funds you provided at or before closing, plus any points the seller paid, were at least as much as the points charged. The funds you provided aren't required to have been applied to the points. They can include a down payment, an escrow deposit, earnest money, and other funds you paid at or before closing for any purpose. You can't have borrowed these funds.
The amount is clearly shown on the settlement statement (such as the Uniform Settlement Statement, Form HUD-1) as points charged for the mortgage. The points may be shown as paid from either your funds or the seller's.
The buyer treats seller-paid points as if the buyer had paid them. If all the tests listed earlier under Exception are met, the buyer can deduct the points in the year paid. If any of those tests aren't met, the buyer must deduct the points over the life of the loan.
If you meet all the tests listed earlier under Exception except that the funds you provided were less than the points charged to you (test 6), you can deduct the points in the year paid up to the amount of funds you provided. In addition, you can deduct any points paid by the seller.
The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that the person who sold you your home also paid one point ($1,000) to help you get your mortgage. In the year paid, you can deduct $1,750 ($750 of the amount you were charged plus the $1,000 paid by the seller). You spread the remaining $250 over the life of the mortgage. You must reduce the basis of your home by the $1,000 paid by the seller.
If you paid $600 or more of mortgage interest (including certain points during the year on any one mortgage to a mortgage holder in the course of that holder's trade or business, you should receive a Form 1098 or similar statement from the mortgage holder. The statement will show the total interest paid on your mortgage during the year. If you bought a main home during the year, it will also show the deductible points you paid and any points you can deduct that were paid by the person who sold you your home. See Points, earlier.
If you purchase a home after 1990 using an MCC, and you sell that home within 9 years, you may have to recapture (repay) all or part of the benefit you received from the MCC program. For additional information, see Paying Back Credits and Subsidies in Pub. 523.
Real estate taxes are usually divided so that you and the seller each pay taxes for the part of the property tax year that each owned the home. See Real estate taxes paid at settlement or closing under State and Local Real Estate Taxes, earlier, to figure the real estate taxes you paid or are considered to have paid.
You bought your home on September 1, 2022. The property tax year in your area is the calendar year, and the tax is due on August 15. The real estate taxes on the home you bought were $1,275 for the year and had been paid by the seller on August 15. You didn't reimburse the seller for your share of the real estate taxes from September 1 through December 31. You must reduce the basis of your home by the $426 [(122 ÷ 365) × $1,275] the seller paid for you. You can deduct your $426 share of real estate taxes on your return for the year you purchased your home.
If you bought your home, you probably paid settlement or closing costs in addition to the contract price. These costs are divided between you and the seller according to the sales contract, local custom, or understanding of the parties. If you built your home, you probably paid these costs when you bought the land or settled on your mortgage.
Fair market value (FMV) is the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and who both have a reasonable knowledge of all the necessary facts.
Andrew received a house as a gift from Ishmael (the donor). At the time of the gift, the home had an FMV of $80,000. Ishmael's adjusted basis was $100,000. After he received the house, no events occurred to increase or decrease the basis. If Andrew sells the house for $120,000, he will have a $20,000 gain because he must use the donor's adjusted basis ($100,000) at the time of the gift as his basis to figure the gain.
The facts are the same as in Example 1, except this time Andrew sells the house for $70,000. He will have a loss of $10,000 because he must use the FMV ($80,000) at the time of the gift as his basis to figure the loss.
The facts are the same as in Example 1, except this time Andrew sells the house for $90,000. Initially, he figures the gain using Ishmael's adjusted basis ($100,000), which results in a loss of $10,000. Because it is a loss, Andrew must now recalculate the loss using the FMV ($80,000), which results in a gain of $10,000. So in this situation, Andrew will have neither a gain nor a loss.
Over the course of the next year, Anthony, acting as First American's agent, made numerous misrepresentations to Craig, inducing Craig into several other investments in which he suffered substantial monetary losses. Anthony also executed a series of unauthorized trades on Craig's accounts at First American, causing Craig to suffer further monetary losses. On November 3, 1988, after Craig became aware of the unauthorized trading on his accounts, he contacted First American to complain. At that time, Craig was informed that Anthony no longer worked for First American.
On November 8, 1988, Craig had a telephone conversation with Bitler, who identified himself as the new president of First American. During that conversation, Craig advised Bitler of the unauthorized trading which had taken place on his accounts at First American. Bitler assured Craig that misrepresentations had been made to him by Anthony and that the unauthorized transactions which Anthony had executed would be "reversed." Approximately two weeks later, Craig had another conversation with Bitler, during which Bitler represented that he had reversed Anthony's unauthorized trades as he had promised. Bitler stated that written confirmations evidencing the fact that the trades had been reversed "were in the mail" and that slow delivery of mail to Alaska was the reason Craig had not yet received the confirmations. Craig subsequently learned that the unauthorized trades had not been reversed. He then filed this action.
By its express terms, § 12(2) limits liability to "sellers" and "offerors" of securities.[2] The Seventh Circuit recently pointed out that many district courts in this circuit, relying on dicta in Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 619 F.2d 1222 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1005, 101 S. Ct. 1719, 68 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1981), have held that to be liable as a "seller" or "offeror" under § 12(2), the defendant must be in privity with the plaintiff-purchaser. See Schlifke v. Seafirst Corp., 866 F.2d 935, 939 (7th Cir. 1989) (citing Steinberg v. Illinois Co., 659 F. Supp. 58, 60 (N.D.Ill.1987) (collecting cases), and Kennedy v. Nicastro, 503 F. Supp. 1116, 1118 (N.D.Ill.1980)). This *534 court, however, has never embraced a strict privity requirement for § 12(2). In fact, in Ambling v. Blackstone Cattle Co., Inc., 658 F. Supp. 1459 (N.D.Ill.1987), this court expressed reservations about whether § 12(2) really requires strict privity between the plaintiff-purchaser and the defendant-seller and doubted whether the Seventh Circuit would adopt such an approach when called upon to actually decide the issue. Id. at 1465-66.
Subsequent to Ambling, in Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 108 S. Ct. 2063, 100 L. Ed. 2d 658 (1988), the Supreme Court refused to adopt a strict privity requirement for cases alleging violations of § 12(1) of the 1933 Act. The Seventh Circuit then stated, in Schlifke, "The language in Pinter v. Dahl, coupled with prevailing case law in other circuits, seems to undermine the continuing viability of the strict privity concept under section 12(2)." 866 F.2d at 940. The Schlifke court, however, refused to adopt a specific test for determining who can be a "seller" or "offeror" under § 12(2). Instead, the court found that under any of the various tests employed for determining who is a "seller" under § 12(2) including the "proximate cause" test and "substantial factor test"[3] the defendant in Schlifke was not a "seller" of securities. 866 F.2d at 940-41.
As in Schlifke, this court need not determine the precise parameters of the "offers or sells" language in § 12(2), for under any reasonable definition of "offeror" or "seller," Craig's claim that Bitler is liable for a direct violation of § 12(2) as a seller of securities must fail. The complaint does not allege that Bitler participated in soliciting Craig's purchase of securities or that Bitler even communicated with Craig before he purchased securities. Nor does the complaint allege that Bitler took any action at First American to facilitate Craig's securities transactions. The only action allegedly taken by Bitler in connection with Craig's transactions was his misrepresentations concerning the reversal of certain trades; those misrepresentations were allegedly made by Bitler sometime after Craig's securities transactions had already been completed. Therefore, in no way can Bitler be considered a proximate cause or a "substantial factor" in causing Craig's transactions to take place. See Beck v. Cantor, Fitzgerald & Co., Inc., 621 F. Supp. 1547, 1561-62 (N.D.Ill.1985) ("[T]here is no question that under any stretch of the term, `strict privity' does not apply to [defendant] whose conduct did not occur until well after the plaintiff bought his ... stock.... Indeed, ... even under the `substantial factor' and `transaction causation' tests enunciated by other circuits which have not required `strict privity' under Section 12(2), [defendant] did not have both prior and significant involvement in the events leading to and causing the sales transaction.") As a result, Bitler is not liable as a direct seller of securities under § 12(2). 781b155fdc