Townhouse or stand-alone house for a first home?
First, some general advice that I think you should consider A good rule of thumb on home buying is to wait to buy until you expect to live in the same place for at least 5 years. This period of time is meant to reduce the impact of closing costs, which can be 1-5% of your total buying & selling price. If you bought and sold in the same year, for example, then you might need to pay over 5% of the value of your home to realtors & lawyers! This means that for many people, it is unwise to buy a home expecting it to be your 'starter' home, if you already are thinking about what your next (presumably bigger) home will look like. If you buy a townhouse expecting to sell it in 3 years to buy a house, you are partially gambling on the chance that increases in your townhome's value will offset the closing costs & mortgage interest paid. Increases in home value are not a sure thing. In many areas, the total costs of home ownership are about equivalent to the total costs of renting, when you factor in maintenance. I notice you don't even mention renting as an option - make sure you at least consider it, before deciding to buy! Also, don't buy a house expecting your life situation to 'make up the difference' in your budget. If you're expecting your girlfriend to move in with you in a year, that implies that you aren't living together now, and maybe haven't talked about it. Even if she says now that she would move in within a year, there's no guarantee that things work out that way. Taking on a mortgage is a commitment that you need to take on yourself; no one else will be liable for the payments. As for whether a townhouse or a detached house helps you meet your needs better, don't get caught up in terminology. There are few differences between houses & townhomes that are universal. Stereotypically townhomes are cheaper, smaller, noisier, and have condo associations with monthly fees to pay for maintenance on joint property. But that is something that differs on a case-by-case basis. Don't get tricked into buying a 1,100 sq ft house with a restrictive HOA, instead of a 1,400 sq ft free-hold townhouse, just because townhouses have a certain reputation. The only true difference between a house and a townhouse is that 1 or both of your walls are shared with a neighbor. Everything else is flexible. If you buy a townhouse, you often are in a condominium arrangement in the US (when you're really in a rowhouse in particular).  So that's a downside right away: you have to have a HOA, or at least some sort of common agreement, though it might not have formal meetings.  Everyone who owns an interest in the entire group of townhouses gets some say in landscaping and such. Beyond that though, townhouses (and similarly, condominiums) are often easier to own (as they don't have as much maintenance that you have to do), but more expensive because you pay someone to do it (the landscaping, the external repairs, etc.).  You likely don't have as much control over what the external looks like (because you have to be in agreement with the other owners), but you also don't have to do the work, unless your agreement is to collectively do the mowing/landscaping, which you should know in advance.   I wouldn't underestimate the value of easier, by the way; it's very valuable to not have to deal with as many repairs and to be able to go a week without thinking about mowing or watering.  In that sense it can be a nice transition into ownership, getting some-but-not-all of the obligations.  But if that's something you really value, doing the landscaping and mowing and whatnot, that's relevant too.  You can always tell your realtor to look for townhouses where the owners do some/all of the landscaping, though that opens up a different can of worms (where you rely on others to do work that they may not do, or do well). They're also somewhat noisier; you may be sharing a wall (but not necessarily, air-gap townhouses do exist) and either way will be closer to your neighbors.  Does noise bother you?  Conversely, are you noisy?  In a college town this is probably something to pay attention to. Price wise, of course stay well within your means; if being close to the city center is important, that may lead you to buy a townhouse in that area.  If being further out isn't a problem, you'll probably have similar choices in terms of price as long as you look in cheaper areas for single family homes. "I very much agree with what @Grade 'Eh' Bacon said about townhouses, but wanted to add a bit about HOA's, renting after moving on, and appreciation: HOA's HOA's can be restrictive, but they can also help protect property values, not all HOA's are created equal, some mean you have zero exterior maintenance, some don't. You'll be able to review the HOA financials to see where the money goes (and if they have healthy reserves). You'll see how much they spend on administration, I think ~10% is typical, and administration can be offset by the savings associated with doing everything in bulk. A well-run HOA should actually save you money over paying for all the things separately, but many people are happy to do some things themselves rather than pay for it, and would come out ahead if they didn't have an HOA. And of course, not all HOA's are well-run. Just do your best to get informed Transitioning to Rental If you are interested in trying your hand being a landlord after living there for a while, a townhouse typically exposes you to less rental risk than a single-family home, because the cost is typically lower and if the HOA maintains everything outside the house then you don't have to worry as much about tenants keeping a lawn in good shape, for example. Appreciation Appreciation varies wildly by market, some research by Trulia suggests in general condo's have outperformed single-family houses over the last 5 years by 10.5%. The same article notes that others disagree with Trulia's assessment and put condo's below single-family houses by 1.3% annually. My first townhouse has appreciated 41% over the last 3 years, while houses in the area are closer to 30% over the same period, but I believe that's a function of my local market more than a nationwide trend. I wouldn't plan around any appreciation forecasts. Source: Condos may be appreciating faster than single-family houses My adviceYou have to do your research on each potential property regardless of whether it's a condo/townhouse/single-family to find out what restrictions there are and what services are provided by the HOA (if any), your agent should be provided with most of the pertinent info, and you may not get to see HOA financials until you're under contract. Most importantly in my view, I wouldn't buy anywhere near the top of your budget. Being ""house-poor"" is no fun and will limit your options, don't count on appreciation or better income in the future to justify stretching yourself thin in the short-term." "Houses tend to appreciate more than condos. Houses are also more expensive. So it's a choice. You mention your girlfriend will be buying it with you. Take the time now to decide what will happen if you split up and put it in writing. Are you splitting the downpayment and mortgage 50/50? If not things can get complicated. Also consider home improvement costs, etc. If you think she is ""the one"" and you'll end up starting a family together, look at the location, nearby schools, etc. Sure, it may sound too early to be thinking about these things, but if you get a head start on finding a nice house you could save a lot of money and build a lot of equity with some smart decisions today."
"Suppose that I work from home, but do not qualify for a business use   of home deduction. As I understand it, this means I cannot deduct   trips from home to another work location (e.g., going to a client's   home or office to do work there). I do not think this is true. You cannot deduct trips to your main business location, i.e.: you cannot deduct trips to your office or client's location if this is your main client and you routinely work on-site. However, if you only visit your clients on occasion for specific events while doing your routine work at home - you can definitely deduct those trips. The deduction of the home usage itself has nothing to do with it. However, there's a different reason they refer to pub 587. Your home must qualify as principal place of business (even if it doesn't qualify for deduction). The qualifications of ""principal place of business"" are described in pub 587. ""if for some personal reason you do not go directly from one location to the other, you cannot deduct more than the amount it would have cost you to go directly from the first location to the second."" What is not clear to me is what exactly is deductible if there are   significant time gaps (within a single day) between trips to different   clients. You got it right. What this quote means is that if you have client A and client B, and you drive from A to B - you can only deduct the travel between A and B, nothing else. I.e.: if you have 2 hours to kill and you take a trip to the mall - you cannot deduct the mileage attributable to that trip. You only deduct the actual distance between A and B as it would be had you driven from A to B directly. The example you cite re first client being considered as the place of business is for the case where your home doesn't qualify as principal place of business. In this case you start counting miles from your first client, and only for direct trips from client to client. If you only have 1 client in that day, tough luck, nothing to deduct. Also, it's not clear whether stopoffs between clients would really be   ""personal reasons"", since the appointment times are often set by the   client, so it's not as if the delay between A and B was just because I   felt like it; there was never the option of going directly from A to   B. That's what is called ""facts and circumstances"". You can argue that you had enough time between meetings to go back to your home office to continue working. The IRS agent auditing you (and you're likely to get audited) will consider that. Maybe will accept it. Maybe not. If I had a gap like that described above, I could save on my taxes by   going to the park or a hamburger stand instead of going home between A   and B But then you wouldn't be at home, so why would it be ""principal place of business"" if you're not there? Boom, lost deduction for the trip to the first client. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). You're dealing with deductions that are considered ""red flags"" for the IRS. I.e.: many people believe that these deductions (business use of your home/car) trigger audits. To substantiate business use of your car you need to keep very good track of your travels (literally travel log, they sell them at Staples), and make sure to distinguish between personal travel and business travel, keep proofs that the meetings took place (although keeping a log is a requirement, it can be backdated/faked, so if audited - the IRS will want to see more than your own documentation). A good tax adviser will educate you on all these rules, and also clarify the complexities you were asking about here. I'm not a tax adviser, so don't rely on this answer when you're preparing your tax return or responding to the IRS audit. In your edit you ask this: Specifically, what I'm wondering is whether it is possible for a home   to qualify as a ""principal place of business"" for purposes of   deducting car expenses but not for the home office deduction. The answer is yes. Deductibility is determined by exclusivity of use, among other things. But the fact that you manage your business from your kitchen doesn't make your kitchen any less of a principal place of business. It is non-deductible because you also cook your dinners there, but it is still, nonetheless, your principal place of business. The Pub 587 which I linked to has these qualifications: Your home office will qualify as your principal place of business if   you meet the following requirements. You use it exclusively and regularly for administrative or management activities of your trade or business. You have no other fixed location where you conduct substantial administrative or management activities of your trade or business. As you see, exclusivity of the usage of your home area is not a requirement here. The ""exclusively and regularly"" in the quote refers to your business not using any other location, and managing it from home regularly. I.e.: if you manage your business a day in a year - that's not enough for it to be considered principal. If you manage your business from your office and your home - you cannot consider home as principal." &gt;As it stands I think home pricing is a complete fucked up retarded system that mostly depends on your neighbors house values. The whole things is a shambles.  To an extent.  I would gladly pay more money to have neighbors who care about their properties though. "When I first purchased my home six years ago, I was able to get into a Bank of America First Time Homebuyer program that required no down payment and no PMI. While I hope you find a lower initial payment, the banks have tightened their requirements so that buyers have ""more skin in the game"" so to speak. Exotic loan options coupled with the subprime mortgage crisis caused the housing bubble to burst. Now banks are being very selective about who they provide a mortgage. The other things you need to look at are interest rate and terms. Do you feel you will be in the home for the next 30 years? Have you considered a 15 year mortgage? Shop around. PMI used to have a bad connotation (at least it did when I bought my home six years ago), but I feel now that it would have been worthwhile for the banks and the economy in the long run had banks required buyers to utilize PMI." A second mortgage is a loan taken out on your house while you still have another mortgage secured by your house. They are a secured loan as they use the borrower’s home as security. Some advantages of Second Mortgages: Some important points to consider when you take a second mortgage If you stop making payments, your lender will be able to take your home through foreclosure, which can cause serious problems for you and your family. Second mortgages can be expensive. You’ll need to pay numerous costs for things like credit checks, appraisals, origination fees, and more. The mortgage rates are typically lower than credit card interest rates, but they’re often slightly higher than your first loan’s rate. So you wouldn't really be using the IRA money for building the house, but for padding your savings? I would just leave the money in the IRA. Don't take it out just in the off-chance you need it, especially when you already have money in savings. If you want to replenish your savings do it by putting some of your income in there. You are making an assumption that the house will appreciate in the short term, which there is no way you can know.  You will probably take a bath financially selling a house after one year into a mortgage even if you sell it for what you paid for it. If there is any chance you might relocate back it is definitely worth keeping it, otherwise I'd say cut your losses. The only upside might be if you could rent it out, keeping in mind that you generally need to rent for about double your mortgage payment to get positive cash flow. Letting it sit empty while you wait for it to appreciate is undoubtedly going to cost you big-time. "NORMALLY, you don't want to buy in a bad neighborhood. The one exception is ""gentrification,"" that is middle class people are moving in because of a good location (which you seem to have). The other important thing to do is to cover your mortgage. Four ""guys"" at $500 a month will do for an $1800 mortgage. The nice thing is that you are your own tenant for two years and can watch the place. The downside of the neighborhood may be that you can't rent the place to four ""girls"" or two girls and two guys even after you leave; it will always have to be ""guys.""  I'd advise most people to pass. With your financial standing and entrepreneurial background, you might just be able to take this risk, and learn from it for your future dealings if it doesn't pan out. (Donald Trump ""cut his teeth"" on a slum complex in Cincinnati.) Hear what I (and others) have to say, then do what ""feels right,"" based on your best judgment, of which you probably have plenty." In most cases my preference would be to buy. However, if you intend to sell after just one year I would maybe lean towards renting. You haven't included buying and selling cost into your equation nor any property taxes, and as John Bensin suggests, maintenance costs. If you were looking to hold the property for at least 5 years, 10 years or more, then if the numbers stood up, I would defiantly go with the buy option. You can rent it out after you move out and if the rent is higher than your total expenses in holding the property, you could rely on some extra passive income.