The Annoying "mortgage interest" write off

The Annoying "mortgage interest" write off

Accountant · Member since 2008 · 119 posts · 52 votes

Recently I've heard (or seen) some real estate guys preach and preach and preach about how keeping mortgage debt is good because you don't lose the mortgage interest deduction. This is very misleading to a new investor who may not have a grasp on taxes and tax deductions and how they work.

Let me explain why the mortgage interest deduction is not a good justification for not paying off debt:

The first reason is that 1. Mortgage interest is a DEDUCTION not a credit. A tax credit reduces the taxes due....after you've run your tax calculation if you owe $1000 and you have a $100 tax credit, the tax bill is reduced to $900. This is a direct $1 for $1 write off. Great. Too bad mortgage interest is not a credit, it is a deduction. This means it only reduces your taxable income. Assuming your tax rate is 20% and you pay in $1 of mortgage interest, the deduction would reduce your taxable income by $1. The $1 deduction in taxable income X 20% = $0.20 savings on your tax liability. You're still down $0.80 for that dollar, it's not a wash as some people make it sound.

This next part does not really apply to a properly run rental business because if you're treating it as a seperate business, the mortgage interest is an expense of doing business.

But when talking about your primary residence, I hear uneducated Realtors and bankers suggesting to keep a mortgage to keep the tax deduction. As seen above, you are only saving $0.20 on your taxes for every $1 you pay to the bank. To add insult to injury, the small benefit is only received if you itemize your deductions. If you claim the standard deduction ($11,600 for married couples) then you receive no tax benefit for your mortgage interest paid. What this means is your itemized deductions MUST be more than the default $11,600 deduction to receive any benefit (if married, $5800 if single). So, say your only itemized deduction is $12,000 in mortgage interest, you're good right?! All clear!....well, not really. Sure, you are itemizing, but are you really receiving $12,000 in true deduction? I vote no. I like to look at things incrementally. What i mean is without itemizing, you get $11,600 deduction by default, with itemizing you're getting $12,000 worth of deductions. The true felt benefit is only $400 INCREMENTAL deduction ($12,000 itemized - $11,600 standard) . Now take that $400 and multiply it by the above 20% tax rate and you only save an incremental $80 on your tax liability over the standard. Is that worth $12,000 in interest paid?

What I'm saying here is, the interest deduction is not that sweet and certainly not worth justifying keeping debt if you have the means to pay it off. Lets think of it in terms outside of real estate and taxes, people get in a la la land when they hear tax deduction (i think due to a lack of understanding). Lets think of this in terms of a pizza and a coupon. If I had a coupon that would save you $20 on your pizza, would you pay me $100 for it? The obvious answer is no, so why would you pay $1000 to the bank in the form of mortgage interest to save $200 on your tax liability? If you're going to be giving money away, donate the $1000 to charity instead and you will get the same $200 tax benefit.

That's it for my rant,

D Payne

4Reply
173 views

Most Popular Reply

J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
15y

If the only benefit of holding a mortgage was the interest deduction, there is no argument that the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost (just like you shouldn't get married or have kids just to the tax benefits).

But, just like with marriage and kids, the benefits of mortgages extend well past the tax benefits.

These days, with interest rates so low, any decent investor should be able to earn more than the rate at which he can borrow. The opportunity for basic investing arbitrage is perhaps better than it's ever been or ever will be again in our lifetimes.

Additionally, the benefits of leverage to be able to buy property (or other assets) at the currently depressed rates gives the ability to both dollar cost average and increase cash flow long-term (with the obvious risks of leverage if you use too much of it).

Add these benefits to the benefit of the interest deduction (which is much higher than 20% if you're earning more money, btw), and the overall benefit can be extremely positive.

Again, it's easy to approach this topic with a very narrow and simplistic view, but good investors realize that most things are not simplistic in this world...

See this reply in the discussion

34 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Accountant, Enrolled Agent · Grayslake, IL · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    14y

    I uploaded the file it is a VERY simple comparison.

    http://www.biggerpockets.com/files/user/StevenHamilton/file/taxable-income-comparison

  • Investor · San Ramon, CA · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 569 votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Steven Hamilton II:
    Brian,

    I agree that the funds can leveraged to increase overall return on investment. I want to mention though that in your cash flow statements of them being equal you will have more taxable cash flow with the mortgage than the same cash flow without financing. This is because of the principal payments in the financing. I will agree and I prefer leveraging.

    -Steven the Tax Guy

    Steven, I'm a little surprised at you... First off, paying more in taxes is a good thing, it means you made more cash. I'd much rather pay the IRS 25% of $100,000 than 25% of $50,000... that's just me...

    But the real point of this post... leverage allows you to buy more property... as a tax guy, what does more properties mean to you?

    Would you rather get $10,000 in cash flow from one $100,000 property and depreciate $3,000 of that...

    Or $15,000 in cash flow from three $100,000 properties and depreciate $9,000 of that?

    In case one, you get $10,000 and pay taxes on $7,000 (call it $1,750) leaving you $8,250... in case two you get $15,000 and pay taxes on $6,000 (call it $1,500) leaving you $13,500. Well look at that... MORE cash flow in your pocket... and LESS taxes to the IRS. Man, leverage is wonderful!

  • Accountant, Enrolled Agent · Grayslake, IL · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    14y

    Nathan,

    Why are you surprised? Why waste money? I'm saying the taxable cash flow is higher on a financed property. You would be paying more on something you did not receive in your hand; this is especially true if the property is under water.

    Check out the spreadsheet I uploaded and you will see that there is "phantom" income beyond your cash flow due to principal payments.

    I'm all for leverage. What I am saying is don't finance a property just for the interest deduction unless you can use the principal to earn more.

    -Steven the Tax Guy

  • Commercial Real Estate Lender / Syndicator · Dallas, TX · Member since 2011 · 888 posts · 309 votes
    14y

    Thanks for posting the spreadsheet Steven.

  • Investor · San Ramon, CA · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 569 votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Steven Hamilton II:
    Nathan,

    Why are you surprised? Why waste money? I'm saying the taxable cash flow is higher on a financed property. You would be paying more on something you did not receive in your hand; this is especially true if the property is under water.

    Check out the spreadsheet I uploaded and you will see that there is "phantom" income beyond your cash flow due to principal payments.

    I'm all for leverage. What I am saying is don't finance a property just for the interest deduction unless you can use the principal to earn more.

    -Steven the Tax Guy

    Sorry, thought that was taken for granted. Sure, if you have $400k, don't put $100k down and buy a $400k property leaving $300k in the bank just so you can get a mortgage interest write off. My assumption is simply that in today's environment most savvy investors can get a much better return on that $300k than they'd pay in penalty on interest. There's an opportunity cost when unnecessarily leveraging (the interest you're paying)... you simply have to use that capital in a way that generates a greater return.

  • Investor · San Ramon, CA · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 569 votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Steven Hamilton II:
    I uploaded the file it is a VERY simple comparison.

    http://www.biggerpockets.com/files/user/StevenHamilton/file/taxable-income-comparison

    I would have put another column in there... essentially buying 5 properties at 20% down each. You can either buy 1 property for $100k or $500k in properties at 80% LTV (5 100k properties).

    I think that's a far more realistic scenario than believing people are taking out mortgages they don't need and letting their other money sit idle.

  • Accountant, Enrolled Agent · Grayslake, IL · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    14y

    Also remember though if you cash flow is equal on the cash vs financed you will pay more tax on the financed.

  • Investor · San Ramon, CA · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 569 votes
    14y

    I'll be honest with you, that comparison didn't make much sense to me.

    If I had the opportunity to buy a property for $100k that rents for $13,200 or a $100k property that rents for $23,200... which would I take? I'm just not sure what you're trying to demonstrate there...

    If I read it right, if I finance the second, I get about $200 less cash each year for 30 years, $6,000 total... but in 30 years, I now own free and clear a house that's generating $5,100 more each year in rents. I'm still going with Option 2.

    The way I read that, because of the principle payments, you need to generate approximately twice as much in rent to get equivalent cash flow. Okay, I can buy a property for cash or two equal properties at 50% LTV and be apples to apples? But that's not true either because your equation assumed equal depreciation where mine I'd have double due to 2 houses. Like I said, I wasn't sure what you were trying to demonstrate there.

  • Accountant, Enrolled Agent · Grayslake, IL · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    14y

    Nathan,

    I was replying to prove my point to Brian that the same cash flow will result in higher income tax paid on the property that is financed. Yes I completely agree that leverage can bring much higher returns; however, it can take 4 properties to equal the same positive cash flow as one paid off property in my example.

    -Steven the Tax Guy

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.