Local News

First-time homebuyers might have to repay tax credit

Posted February 3, 2010
Updated February 4, 2010

— Have you taken advantage of the federal first-time homebuyers tax credit? If so, you might have to pay it back.

The Internal Revenue Service defines a first-time homebuyer as someone who has not owned a home in the three years prior to purchase.

The tax credit, for people purchasing a home from Nov. 7, 2009, to April 30, 2010, is generally equal to 10 percent of the home's purchase, up to a maximum of $8,000, and is available to single taxpayers making less than $125,000 or married couples with a combined income of less than $225,000.

If you meet the federal requirements and keep the residence as your primary home for three years, there's no need to pay back the credit.

But if you received a housing credit before Jan. 1, 2009, you have to pay it back.

That credit – up to $7,500 for qualified homebuyers – is more like a 0 percent loan and must be paid back over the course of 15 years in $500 installments. That begins with the 2010 tax return.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • DontLikeTheSocialistObama Feb 10, 2010

    Once again, Obama and his lackey's pull one over on the taxpayers.

  • magicbus Feb 8, 2010

    josephlawrence43...love your response!!!

    It is typical of all the ignorance on these postings. You want to blame the "democommies", as you put it, when it was a republican government that started the tax credit in the first place.

    You should do some reading before you say something stupid!

  • Right_Is_Right Feb 5, 2010

    I agree with everyone here. I did my research, like many other people over the last two years, and did not take the credit that was available to me for TY08. Why would anyone want another $7,500 or $8,000 loan hanging over their heads for 15 years?

  • peplquitwhinin Feb 4, 2010

    I am very disappointed that WRAL would print such a misleading headline. I have often accused news media of being in the fear mongering business, and this is another example of such. This is all about getting hits on a web site. The story is very factual, the headline is misleading. But honestly, what is the purpose of this story? This is not news. This is not something new. This is a tax code. Where is the report from WRAL on the new taxable income ranges? Where is the story about the $600 dollar family tax credit from three years ago? These are just as much news as this story is, which is not very much at all.

  • ihateliberals Feb 4, 2010

    This was public knowledge and any credible real estate agent hired to represent you would know this. Plus, it was clearly reported in many public news channels at the time the initial incentive was allowed. This sensationalized report implies someone did something wrong or underhanded - and based on the responses I've seen, it appears some people fell for it. C'mon WRAL - provide quality, true and correct reporting.

  • christinebbd Feb 4, 2010

    WRAL, the headline on this story is misleading! I'm extremely disappointed in my favorite TV station. What a lousy way to sabotage 2010 housing sales. This doesn't affect TODAY'S sales but your headline leads the public to think it might. This type of headline is what I would expect on the rag Inside Edition, not WRAL!

  • familyfour Feb 4, 2010



  • SEOpro Feb 4, 2010

    Golo won't print what I really think about this.

    So use your vivid imagination and yes, I probably said it.

  • josephlawrence43 Feb 4, 2010

    typical of the democommies in DC--give to you with one hand---snatch it back with the other...no guarantee that anywhere within that 15 year period an individual will be able to pay it back--what then???

  • wildcat Feb 4, 2010

    In today's economy, people just don't have the extra money. Many are unemployed because of layoffs. Do any one even care about that?