Tax Implications - First 2-Family Rental Property
"You should really be talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about taxes and to a lawyer about the liability protection. You won't find answers from neither of theses here. Besides the liability protection, how do these 2 options affect taxes? There's no liability protection difference between the two (talk to a lawyer to verify) since you'll be cosigning them personally either way. In the first case (loan to the LLC) - everything goes on the 1065 and you get the bottom line on K-1 which transfers to you own tax return. In the second case the loan interest is your personal investment expense (Schedule A deduction) while the loan proceeds you moved to the LLC add to your basis. I'd suggest getting the loan directly in the LLC name, if you can. However, the Lawyers seem to agree that this would void the mortgage   because of the ""Due on Sale"" clause in mortgage loans. ""Due on sale"" may or may not be invoked, but that's a risk you'd be taking, yes. LLC is a separate legal entity (as opposed to a living trust, to which your second quote seems to be referring), so it is definitely a possibility for a lender to call on the loan if you re-title it."
I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying  was reported  as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income  tax was not withheld.  If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion,  then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying  was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms.  If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion,  then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes  on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as  of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns.    My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash)  would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?)  and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your  2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a  mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments   for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP   for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility   for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the   problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend   your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the   value of the rental during those years as additional income,   and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional   amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture,   but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather   than in the future. I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business.  As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too!  Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year No. This logic is dangerous.  The apples to apples comparison between renting and buying should be between similar living arrangements. One can't (legitimately) compare living in a 600 sq ft studio to a 3500 sq ft house.  With the proposal you offer, one should get the largest mortgage they qualify for, but that can result in a house far too big for their needs. Borrowing to buy just what you need makes sense. Borrowing to buy a house with rooms you may never visit, not a great idea.  By the way, do the numbers. The 30 year rate is 4%. You'd need a $250,000 mortgage to get $10,000 in interest the first year, that's a $312,000 house given an 80% loan. On a median income, do you think it makes sense to buy a house twice the US median?  Last, a portion of the tax savings is 'lost' to the fact that you have a standard deduction of nearly $6,000 in 2012. So that huge mortgage gets you an extra $4000 in write-off, and $600 back in taxes.  Don't ever let the Tax Tail wag the Investing Dog, or in this case the House Dog.  Edit - the investment return on real estate is a hot topic. I think it's fair to say that long term one must include the rental value of the house in calculating returns. In the case of buying of way-too-big house, you are not getting the return, it's the same as renting a four bedroom, but leaving three empty.  If I can go on a bit - I own a rental, it's worth $200K and after condo fee and property tax, I get $10K/yr. A 5% return, plus whatever appreciation. Now, if I lived there, I'd correctly claim that part of my return is the rental value, the rent I don't pay elsewhere, so the return to me is the potential growth as well as saved rent. But if the condo rents for $1200, and I'd otherwise live in a $600 apartment with less space, the return to me is lost. In my personal case, in fact, I bought a too big house. Not too big for our paycheck, the cost and therefore the mortgage were well below what the bank qualified us for. Too big for the need. I paid for two rooms we really don't use. In response to one of the comments you might be interested in owning the new home as a rental property for a year.  You could flip this thinking and make the current home into a rental property for a period of time (1 year seems to be the consensus, consult an accountant familiar with real estate). This will potentially allow for a 1031 exchange into another property -- although I  believe that property can't then be a primary residence. All potentially not worth the complication for the tax savings, but figured I'd throw it out there. Also, the 1031 exchange defers taxes until some point in the future in which you finally sell the asset(s) for cash. There is a positive not being mentioned above: the depreciation vs your regular earned income. Disclaimer: I am not a tax attorney or an accountant, nor do I play one on the internet. I am however a landlord. With that important caveat out of the way: Rental properties (and improvements to them) depreciate in value on a well-defined schedule. You can claim that depreciation as a phantom loss to lower the amount of your taxable regular income. If you make a substantial amount of the latter, it can be a huge boon in the first few years you own the property. You can claim the depreciation as if the property were new. So take the advice of a random stranger on the internet to your accountant/attorney and see how much it helps you. "Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred.  The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first ""gain"" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain.  This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year.  Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it)." First the good news: based on the time involved, and the amount of potential profits; you will not owe any tax on the sale of the house no matter which option you pick. Now the details. When determining if there are any capital gains the IRS cares about the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. The amount of the loan, the final balance of the loan, or the lack of loan don't factor into the calculation. To complicate matters the government does factor into the equation any improvements you have made to the house (like a new deck) and the cost of buying and selling the house (real estate agents). If a single person has less than 250K in capital gains and has used the house as their main residence for 2 of the the previous 5 years their tax is zero. For a couple the tax free gain is $500K. For your situation since the sale price is less than $250K, the capital gains will also be less than $250K. You do have one potential area of concern. If the house is worth significantly more than $150K, the government could claim that the difference between what you charged your parents and what you could have charged was a gift. Assuming that there are no other factors that you didn't include in the original question it would appear that you will not face any taxes. Regarding your two options, neither will impact the taxes. Though draining your savings or investments could make it difficult to meet an emergency during the time between the sending of the $95K to the mortgage company and the closing on the deal with your parents. If the money came from retirement account it could have an even greater impact on your taxes and retirement situation. This new roof should go on the 2016 LLC business return, but you probably won't be able to expense the entire roof as a repair.  A new roof is most likely a capital improvement, which means that it would need to be depreciated over many years instead of expensed all in 2016.  The depreciation period for a residential rental property is 27.5 years.  Please consider seeking a CPA or Enrolled Agent for the preparation of your LLC business return. See also: IRS Tangible Property Regulations FAQ list When you made the loan to the LLC (by paying the contractor and making a contract with the LLC), did you state an interest rate?  If not, you and your brother should correct the contract so that an interest rate is stated, then follow it.  The LLC needs to pay you interest until the loan is paid off.  You need to report the interest income on your personal return, and the LLC needs to report the interest expense in its business return.