LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Will We See an Extension of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act through 2014?

The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 has provided relief to thousands of borrowers who have completed short sales or obtained loan modifications with mortgage principal reductions. Before this law was enacted, any forgiven mortgage debt was taxable by the government. For example, if a lender reduced a borrower’s principal balance by $100,000.00, then the borrower would have to report that forgiven debt as ordinary income and pay taxes on it.  This was, of course, impractical and unreasonable for borrowers who were already experiencing financial hardship and were relying on modifications or short sales to save them from foreclosure. Most borrowers could not afford their tax bills and were stuck in the same situation as they were in before they had requested help from their lenders.

Under The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, borrowers do not have to pay taxes on cancelled mortgage debt as a result of a modification or foreclosure of their primary residence. This act was originally supposed to end at the end of 2012, but it was granted an extension through 2013 on the third day of the new year.

An extension may be granted through 2014, but it is unlikely. Both H.R. 2788 and H.R. 2994 are bills that will extend The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act for at least another year, but they were each referred to committee over the summer and have received no attention since. There are 44 cosponsors for H.R. 2994, but it is already now the middle of December and time is running out. In order for this bill to be enacted, it still needs to pass the House and Senate and it must get signed by the President before December 31, 2013. It is improbable that an extension will be granted, but not impossible; especially with the economy rebounding and many forgetting the plight of those left behind. It’s important to not forget these individuals that still need relief and who have often spent years trying to get a modification or a short sale approved only to now be taxed when they finally get the relief that they have hoped for.


So for them, please tell your local representative how important it is that these Bills are passed and The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 is extended for another year.

Thank you to Lieb at Law's Assistant Case Manager, Jessica Vogele, for sharing this valuable information. 

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Hotel Occupancy Tax on Expedia, are brokers next to be taxed for their rentals?

Last week, the Court of Appeals, NY's highest court, ruled that "Local Law 43, a hotel room occupancy tax applicable to online travel companies", is constitutional.

At issue before the Court was the legality of the City's "authority to tax the fees they collect from their customers" in Expedia v. City of NY Dept. of Finance where this fee represents an amount, which is larger than the amount actually paid the hotel for the actual occupancy of the room.

So the question before the Court was whether the brokerage fee, on hotel occupancy, was taxable? 

This decision is most interesting to real estate professionals because they always wonder why there are rules for transient (short-term) rentals of housing. As they can see from this decision, there are rules for establishments that offer transient housing such as hotels, motels & inns in the form of the imposition of a tax, among other rules. Further there are rules for companies that "broker" those deals whereas those "brokers" have to pay a tax on their commission, among other rules. Aren’t these websites, called “room remarketers” in the applicable tax, analogous to real estate brokerage companies for landlord / tenant rentals that aren’t transient? At the least, aren’t they analogous to Airbnb in the transient setting?

In opposition, the online travel companies argued that the City was taxing “a service fee under the guise of a tax on hotel rent” and therefore the tax was improper. The Court explained that the online travel companies were incorrect. The Court stated: “[u]nder the statute, the City may tax a ‘rent or charge,’ and it may collect the tax from a hotel ‘owner . . . or . . . person entitled to be paid the rent or charge’".  Further, “the City may tax any service fee that is a ‘condition of occupancy.’”

Aren’t brokerage fees on landlord / tenant a condition of occupancy? Maybe, but maybe not. Doesn’t a condition mean that its failure prevents the result? Can a broker prevent the result? No, therein is the difference between brokerage companies and travel sites. Real estate brokers often are cut out of deals and cannot prevent occupancy in order to get paid, but instead have a claim for commission that is separate from occupancy. In fact, no Lis Pendens is available to brokers and a mechanic’s lien is only available for a lease with a term of more than 3 years for non-residential property.

However, doesn’t Airbnb do just the same as Expedia? So, will companies like Expedia try to level the playing field next by lobbying that this tax is imposed on Airbnb as well? Right now, the cost of doing business for Airbnb just got cheaper and they now have a strategic financial advantage in the City of New York. What happens next is tantalizing.  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Movements in LGBT Discrimination Laws

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 26 same-sex marriage decisions, pressure has increased to expand protections under federal, state and local legislation regarding sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression in the context of employment and housing. In the employment area, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions ("HELP") Committee has approved a bill, ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act), that would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Learn more about employment and housing regulations and see the full published article here