Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 54%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$69 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
×
Take Your Forum Experience
to the Next Level
Create a free account and join over 3 million investors sharing
their journeys and helping each other succeed.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
Already a member?  Login here
General Real Estate Investing
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated 23 days ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

571
Posts
332
Votes
Michinori Kaneko
  • Rental Property Investor
  • New York
332
Votes |
571
Posts

Tax consequences on insurance payouts

Michinori Kaneko
  • Rental Property Investor
  • New York
Posted

Hello, 

I am trying to figure out the tax consequences on insurance payouts as I'm thinking about having a more tightly secured portfolio.

Lets say that the house has adjusted cost basis of $200k.  The options for insuring the properties are fair value approach or full replacement cost. The fair value you can insure for whatever you feel is fair value (let's just say $250k in this instance) and full replacement will cost $400k.  

If the house completely burns down, under fair market value approach the tax consequences are pretty easily determined by taking difference in payout vs the cost basis as the gain. However I'm wondering under full replacement cost, how this works out. Let's say the house was fully rebuilt for $400k. Under this scenario am I:

1) taxed for the excess $200k ($400k - cost basis) as capital gain and my cost basis is now $400k.

2) taxed for the excess $200k ($400k - cost basis) as capital gain and my cost basis remains as $200k.

3) not taxed for capital gain and my cost basis remains at $200k.

if it's either 1 or 2 I would almost steer away from full replacement cost since that would mean I am paying for a phantom gain that I will never realize (I would assume the fmv will most likely still be around $250k even if it was fully rebuilt with $400k of cost/labor).  Thank you in advance for your help! 

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

7,749
Posts
9,621
Votes
Bill B.#3 1031 Exchanges Contributor
  • Investor
  • Las Vegas, NV
9,621
Votes |
7,749
Posts
Bill B.#3 1031 Exchanges Contributor
  • Investor
  • Las Vegas, NV
Replied

as a “layman” I can’t see anyway you are taxed s too many people have had properties they paid $50k for 30 years ago burn down in California. They will not be taxed on the $1M replacement. I would ASSUME the old cost basis remains and the insurance payment remains untaxed as long as it’s all spent on repairs. 

Imagine you have insurance and the $20k roof is destroyed by a tree. You don’t get to write off the $20k expense because you didn’t pay it, the insurance company did. You don’t get taxed on the insurance payment because it’s not income or a gain. But you also don’t get to add to your costs basis because you didn’t add to it. 

I can see getting taxed if you kept the money and didn’t rebuild, that would be closer to a sale?

Now I too an interested to hear from one of the many expert CPAs on BP. 

Loading replies...