As part of our continuing series, today we bring you an interview with John M. of Housing Doom, who despite not yet having achieved macroeconomic enlightenment, was one of the first bloggers to spot the housing bubble, and comment on the impossibility of getting “something for nothing.” Enjoy!

Read the rest of this entry »

If used properly, mortgage assumption can provide valuable benefits for both the buyer and the seller. If used improperly, however, they can be a bane for both parties, as well as illegal.

Let’s start with the basics: What is meant by the term “assumed mortgage?” In a nutshell, the assumption of a mortgage is just what it sounds like- the transfer of all liabilities associated with a mortgage from one party to another. There are several variations, but it basically refers to a situation in which the buyer of a home assumes the existing mortgage from the seller, in lieu of taking out a new mortgage.

The benefit of such an arrangement is cost savings. Especially if interest rates have risen in the interim (i.e. in the time that has elapsed since the mortgage was initially obtained), the savings can be significant. Even with significant changes in interest rates, there are savings associated with not having to pay closing costs associated with obtaining a new mortgage. A buyer whose credit is less than stellar meanwhile, can avoid negotiating with a bank, and instead negotiate directly with the seller. Typically, any savings are shared between the buyer in the seller, and are simply tacked on to the price of the home.

Historically, mortgage assumption was only ever popular during times of interest rate uncertainty, namely the 1980’s and early 1990’s. At that time, many mortgages were assumed privately. In other words, the transfer was negotiated directly between buyer and seller, without the knowledge of the lender. Such mortgages are often structured as wraparounds, whereby the original mortgage is maintained by the original borrower, who receives payment from a new homeowner at a spread to the original borrower. Nowadays, such assumptions have become the exception, since lenders have caught on and inserted due-on-sale clauses into mortgages, which essentially required them to be repaid in the event of a change of ownership on the underlying property. Failure to notify the lender of a mortgage assumption, in such a case, qualifies as mortgage fraud.

Some lenders have become more amenable to mortgage assumption, such that they are willing to honor a transfer to a new borrower without assessing fresh closing costs. The catch is that in the process, the interest rate is ratcheted up to conform with prevailing rates. [Otherwise, the lender would deprive itself of the income that it could earn from charging a higher rate]. It should be noted that FHA and VA loans are always assumable, although those originated after 1989 require the approval (and payment of certain fees) of the lender.

If private mortgage assumption strikes you as incredibly risky, that’s because it is! While a public (i.e. lender-approved) assumption relieves the original borrower of all liability, private mortgages are off-the-record (and often illegal) and hence must be resolves directly between the two parties involved. Failure by the new borrower to make timely payments would place the original mortgager in the awkward position of playing landlord, perhaps to the point of executing a form of foreclosure. Meanwhile, mortgages that are assumed multiple times still leave the borrower (and his credit rating) on the hook until for as long as the mortgage remains existence, as one borrower learned the hard way.

In today’s ultra-strict lending environment, chances are you won’t ever have to deal with mortgage assumption. Given that rates are projected to begin rising, however, it could conceivably experience a modest surge in popularity. Still, for the average borrower, it’s not something worth considering.

The trend of mortgage rates over the last couple months has generally been down, or at worst flat. That could be about to change, however, as rates ticked up for the first time since August, averaging 5% on the dot. According to an alternative survey conducted by the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), the rate for the benchmark 30-year fixed-rate mortgage surpassed 5% two weeks ago and is in fact now closer to 5.1%

Meanwhile, the average rate on a 15-year fixed-rate mortgage rose to 4.43 percent, from 4.37 percent last week, according to Freddie Mac. Rates on five-year, adjustable-rate mortgages averaged 4.4 percent, up from 4.38 percent a week earlier. Rates on one-year, adjustable-rate mortgages inched down to 4.54 percent from 4.6 percent. Points across all four categories of mortgages have remained constant at around .6.

Regardless of which survey you prefer, they all indicate that rates are rising. The consensus among analysts and industry insiders, meanwhile, is that they will continue to rise. “At a congressional hearing on Tuesday, MBA Chief Economist Jay Brinkmann said that the ‘most benign estimates are for increases in the range of 20 to 30 basis points’ but that some estimates of potential increases ‘are several times those amounts.’ ” The main reason for the projected increase has nothing to do with changes in the balance between the supply and demand for mortgages. Rather, it is grounded in the expectation that the Fed is planning to turn off the spigot of cash that has already spewed more than $1 Trillion into the market.

Typically, an inverse relationship exists between mortgage rates and home prices, such that when rates rise, prices fall. This is primarily due to the fact that borrowers work backwards when buying a home by first determining the highest monthly payment they can afford. With higher rates, the interest portion of the payment rises at the expense of the equity payment, which translates into a decline in the price of a home one can afford.

It is not clear whether that relationship will hold this time around, if/when mortgage rates finally rise. Home prices have actually ticked up over the last two quarters, and it’s possible that this momentum will be sustained. Unfortunately, this is not the view espoused by the majority of analysts. Robert Shiller, of the eponymous Case-Shiller Index, has discerned through a recent survey that a bubble-mentality has gripped many of the buyers wading back into the market. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that speculators have returned to the markets, en masse.

First-time buyers make up the other large contingent. When the tax rebate underlying such sales expires this month, chances are that this class of buyers will disappear completely. Even if Congress extends the deadline of the program, it’s likely that it won’t have much of an effect, since most of the determined buyers have already entered the market. Investors have already come to understand this notion, which explains why housing stocks are down nearly 20% from the summer highs.

“I’m a firm prophet of the ‘W’ shaped recovery. Housing is going to go down again in the first quarter of 2010. The real healing won’t begin until all these nonperforming loans start trading in earnest, until we get these borrowers back on their feet,” expounded one analyst. In other words, housing prices can’t recover until the economy recovers. Put another way, the housing market won’t return to normalcy until the financial situations of long-term, non-speculative borrowers have likewise returned to normal.

As part of a new series, the Mortgage Calculator will begin interviewing other housing columnists/bloggers. The following is our first interview, with Patrick Killelea of Patrick.Net, one of the most widely read blogs on the housing crash.

Despite his vast readership, “Patrick has no background in real estate at all. He is the author of the O’Reilly book Web Performance Tuning. He lives in Menlo Park, CA.” In his own words, “You should not believe anything he says until you understand the math yourself. Here’s the math:

• 3% annual cost of renting is less than the 9% annual cost of owning the same thing

If you understand that, then you probably understand the rest of this [my] site as well. If your job depends on not understanding that, then you won’t understand it.”

Mortgage Calculator: Given the sub-title of your blog, is it fair to say that you believe the housing market hasn’t yet bottomed?

Yes, I think the housing market has much further to fall on the coasts and in expensive areas. But in some poor neighborhoods, prices have fallen back into line with rents already, meaning that it’s about the same to rent or buy there. So those poor areas seem close to a bottom.

Mortgage Calculator: You write that when interest rates rise, housing prices generally fall. How do you square this with the notion that interest rates will probably rise when there is evidence of an economic recovery, at which point borrowers will be in better positions for buy expensive homes?

Prices on the coasts are so far beyond the range of the median salary that any small increase in salary is insignificant compared to small increases in interest rates. It is still common for borrowers in California to have ten times their annual income in debt. They can pay their mortgage only at extraordinarily low adjustable interest rates, and only until the mortgage resets. A reset from 4% to 6% means 50% more interest every month.

Mortgage Calculator: Do you think, then, that when the Fed finally raises rates, that home prices will start to once again fall?

Start once again? Not sure what you mean there, since prices are still falling right now. For a realistic view, avoid all news which quotes used-house salesmen (realtors) because they will say anything that parts fools from money.

But yes, rising rates will definitely push prices down even more.

Mortgage Calculator: Given the lopsided relationship between housing prices and rental rates, do you that it makes sense for real estate investors to look at buying rental properties?

Only in poor neighborhoods, so far. You can easily calculate the annual rent to purchase price ratio and see what kind of gross return you can expect as a percentage. Returns in wealthy areas are too low to justify the high prices, about 3%, but there are poor parts of Oakland, for example, where the return is over 10%.

Mortgage Calculator: On a related note, do you generally believe that renting is more economical than buying, even when the ratio of rent to home prices is more in line with long-term averages?

No, if you think about it for a minute, you see that renting must have been more expensive historically than owning, or landlords would have gone out of business. If their mortgage and expenses are $2000 per month, but the tenant is paying $1500 per month in rent, the landlord is losing money.

The basic theme of my site is that that relationship is inverted now, and landlords in middle-class and better areas are giving a huge gift to renters. It’s a fantastic time to be a renter. You get the use of a house for free, paying only the property tax and maintenance.

Mortgage Calculator: You pointed to appraisers as facilitating the rise in housing prices, because of the way they are incentivized. Recently, there have been reports that appraisers are dragging their heals in the opposite direction, wary of fomenting another bubble in housing? Do you think these reports tell the story? How do you think this will changed as a result of the new laws which require appraisers be appointed directly by the lenders?

No, I think all those stories about appraisers dragging their heels are just the used-house salesmen complaining that appraiser honesty is putting a damper on their business. The business of realtors is deception. Honesty doesn’t sell houses.

But I have little faith in those laws. There is so much money to be made by fleecing buyers that realtors will find ways to eliminate the honest appraisers. The NAR (National Association of Realtors) is one of the biggest lobbyists in DC, and lobbyists literally write the laws and hand them to congressmen these days. The NAR will find a way to defeat honest appraisals unless we have sweeping campaign finance reform.

Mortgage Calculator: Many analysts have argued that the apparent stabilization in the housing market is being supported by a glut of first-time buyers, driven by the government’s $8,000 incentive plan. You wrote recently, however, that there is “Shortage of first-time buyers.” Can you explain?

Everyone who could afford a house already bought one. And then people who could not afford a house bought one too. And then the builders kept on building. New people do come into the market, but compared to the saturation level, there are just not that many first-time buyers. No glut.

The $8,000 tax incentive did nothing but keep prices $8,000 higher than the market would have set. Those who bought with that incentive actually got no benefit. The real solution to help buyers is the lower prices that the market would set based on rents and salaries. But that harms banks, and banks are also big lobbyists in DC. So the incentive was an $8,000 per-sale gift to banks, not to common people. So again, corporate control of government is being used to part people and their money. Campaign finance reform would help.

Mortgage Calculator: What do you think it will take for people to accept the notion that home prices don’t appreciate much faster than the rate of inflation, over a long-term period of time?

They have to grow up seeing that fact in front of them every day. The Japanese now have seen 15 years of continuous residential real estate declines. I imagine the psychology is finally changing there.

It would also help if there were an open market in real estate, where every bid had to be validated by a bank, and published in the papers. Realtors lie about bidding wars all the time, but because bids are not public, they get away with it.

Mortgage Calculator: How would you reconcile government and seller incentives and low interest rates with the possibility that home prices could fall further, when advising someone thinking about buying their first home? Would you advise them to buy, wait for a while, or wait forever?

Rather than look at macroeconomics, I would say they should look at two aspects of their own situation:

1. Rent for a comparable place
2. Their salary

They should wait if renting is cheaper than owning at a 30-year fixed mortgage rate. And they should wait if the debt they are thinking of taking on is more than 3 times their salary in a secure job.

If rent would be significantly more than owning that same thing, then it makes sense to buy. Also, if someone has the cash on hand, or if they have a much larger secure income than is needed to service the expenses, then it’s also OK to buy if they plan to stay there a long time.

The entire goal is not to waste life as a debt-slave. But it takes independent thought and determination to avoid that fate.

Loan modifications have been a popular theme on the Mortgage Calculator blog for the last couple weeks, and I plan to continue in that vein with this post. I’ve already covered the process of having a “private” loan modified (one originated/owned by a private lender). Today, I’d like to overview the process for having a “public” loan modified.

First of all, let me explain what I mean by a public loan. I’m primarily referring to loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). These loans have historically been available to low-income borrowers, who can apply for a mortgage through the FHA to achieve down-payment assistance and or more affordable mortgages. The second category of “public”mortgages are those held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These mortgages have always enjoyed an implicit government guarantee. Since the government effectively took control of the mortgage giants, you could say that it has a vested interest in ensuring their solvency, at the very least.

Those that have FHA mortgages are perhaps in the best position when it comes to loan modification. Eligible borrowers typically enjoy a 30% reduction on the interest-accruing balance on their respective mortgages. For as long as they live in the home and stay current on the original mortgage, they are only required to pay interest on the other 70%. When borrowers move out or refinance, however, the entire balance comes due.

Of course, FHA borrowers still have to jump through the same hoops as normal borrowers in order to achieve a modification. In other words, it’s not the FHA that ultimately has the power to approve/deny a modification request, but rather the loan services, which are incentivized by the government to support the program. Still, borrowers who are not yet delinquent on their mortgages probably don’t have a shot of getting approved, and the same is true for borrowers whose financial situations are especially desperate. The most promising candidates are the ones in the middle of the affordability spectrum- those whose mortgage payments aren’t crippling and hence have a realistic chance of avoiding foreclosure with the help of a modification.

Those whose mortgages aren’t guaranteed by the FHA, but are owned by either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, are also in a fortunate position. Since Fannie and Freddie are in a government trusteeship, mortgage servicers don’t need the approval of private investors before approving a modification. [For those who aren't sure whether they fall into this category, you can enter your street address here to confirm]. Still, the mortgage services themselves must grant the approval, and as with FHA loans, they are compensated for the government for doing so.

Such servicers are looking for borrowers whose housing payments (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance) exceed 31% of gross monthly income. In this sense, borrowers whose income has fallen (but not disappeared) since taking out their mortgages, and those whose payments have increased (as a result of adjustable rate reset, for example) are the most likely candidates. Typically, such borrowers will have see their interest rate reduced to 2%, though loan balance/principal won’t be adjusted.

As with FHA loans, servicers are looking for borrowers that are in need of aid, but not desperately so. Borrowers without any income won’t qualify, because the risk of foreclosure will still be high after modification. Those with healthy savings or other assets also won’t qualify, since most servicers will judge them capable of making mortgage payments without a reduction. The key is “massaging” your financial position so that you fall into the sweet spot.

The much-maligned Federal loan modification program appears to be gathering momentum, as the Obama administration recently announced that 500,000 mortgage loans have now been modified. This was hailed as a milestone, and the administration claims that it was reached ahead of schedule. Given the program’s slow start (reported in depth by the Mortgage Calculator), it is certainly cause for celebration.

Leading the pack are Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Lehman Brothers, which have modified 33%, 20%, and 33%, respectively of their eligible loan pools. According to a government report, “In the second quarter, 78% of loan modifications involved actually reducing borrowers’ payments, up from 54% in the first quarter,” which means that “mortgage servicers became less likely to merely add missed payments to the balance of a reworked loan.” Even better, lenders have modified more than two million loans outside the auspices of the government program, through the industry alternative, known as the Hope Now program.

According to the government, the program aims to be even more successful, in terms of both individual lenders and on an aggregate basis. The stated objective remains 3 – 4 million modifications. Towards this end, the government will continue to incentivize lenders and release “report cards” on their progress.

Criticism of the program continues to pour on from all sides, however. Most of it is centered on the notion that the program is both naive and undercapitalized. Asserts one critic, “Borrowers whose mortgages are modified tend to default on the new terms at a high rate. Of the estimated 4.5 million homeowners in foreclosure or headed there with mortgages 90 days or more delinquent, the program ultimately will save only 1 million of them.”

In addition, there is concern that a fresh wave of delinquencies and potential foreclosures threatens to outpace the government’s efforts. To this, Treasury Secretary Geithner offered the following hedged response: “While the pace of loan modifications now exceeds that of new foreclosed loans, a ‘large number of families’ remain at risk of losing homes they might be able to afford if they could change their mortgage terms.”

There is even criticism coming from within the government, much of which is grounded in familiar partisan battles. Republican lawmakers argue that the $75 Billion budgeted for the program is wasteful and unnecessary, while their Democrat counterparts insist that additional funds need to be allocated. Despite the disagreement, “A Congressional Oversight Panel formally urged “Treasury to reconsider the scope, scalability and permanence of the programs designed to minimize the economic impact of foreclosures and consider whether new programs or program enhancements could be adopted.”

Finally, there are concerns that the program continues to benefit lenders and servicers, at the expense of borrowers. Lenders reap financial rewards for modifying loans even when the result is an increase in debt for the borrower. “These Treasury people are all from Wall Street, and they’re not doing anything but protecting Wall Street. They don’t care in the least about protecting homeowners,” argued one lawyer. The government, however, is doing its best to make sure loan modifications are carried out in an upright manner, and is in the process of officially prohibiting the charging of upfront fees in association with modifications. Progress is slow, but at least it’s progress.

Based on all measures, the government’s role in the housing/mortgage markets has expanded rapidly since the onset of the credit crisis in 2008. “In fact, more than 80% of the new residential mortgage loans made this year benefited from some form of government support, according to the trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance.” Experts reckon that if the government were to exit, the nascent recovery would collapse immediately. Unfortunately, due to budgetary problems, this is becoming increasingly likely.

Let’s begin by examining the government “intervention” in greater detail. First, there is the government tax credit, which provides up to $8,000 towards the purchase of a new home, by first-time homebuyers. Originally designed as a tax credit, the cash can now be “monetized” and put towards a down-payment. It is impossible to understate the success of this program: “Deutsche Bank estimates the credit has helped generate 350,000 sales, about half the increase in single-family home sales in the past six months.”

Unfortunately, many analysts are skeptical that these sales were facilitated by the tax credit. Rather, the assumption is that buyers who would have entered the market in the next couple years anyway, simply moved their plans forward to take advantage of both the credit and weak prices. It stands to reason, then, that if the program expires in November (as scheduled), that demand could plummet, and home prices could once again sink.

Then, there is the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both companies are basically insolvent, and if not for the injection of $200 Billion funded with taxpayer money, it’s safe to say that the market for mortgage securities wouldn’t be functioning. At some point, the government will have to come up with a viable long-term alternative to the current situation, the implications of which are still unknown. [See related post: "Could Fannie and Freddie Disappear?"].

The Federal Reserve Bank has also played an important role in keeping the market for mortgage-backed securities functioning smoothly. The Fed has purchased at least $800 Billion in such securities as part of its quantitative easing mission, with total purchases to reach as much as $1.45 Trillion next March, when the program is slated to come to an end. Again, it’s impossible to understate the impact on mortgage rates. Since intervention began, the spread between mortgage rates and Treasury rates has narrowed by .7%, implying that rates would not be toying with record lows if not for the hand of the Fed. As the Fed slows down and eventually stops its purchases, mortgage rates are expected to rise dramatically. [Chart courtesy of WSJ].

Last but not least, there is the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which has become the major player in the mortgage market. While the housing bubble was inflating, less than 10% of all loans were backed by the FHA. Nowadays, that figure is closer to 40%, and for some lenders, as high as 90%. When you consider that the FHA recently raised its limits, it’s fair to say that obtaining a mortgage would be much more difficult otherwise.

The FHA has also been among extremely aggressive in executing loan modifications, in contrast to private lenders, which continue to drag their feet. Under the terms of the FHA program, borrowers are only required to pay interest on 2/3 of the outstanding principal balance. The remaining portion of debt is not forgiven, but must be repaid only in the event of a sale or refinancing.

Regardless of whether this saves the organization money – as it alleges – it still results in a net loss on every mortgage that it insures. Given also that a higher proportion of FHA loans are delinquent (when compared to uninsured loans), it’s inevitable that its role in the housing/mortgage market will soon decline. Its reserves have already fallen to the lowest level in 75 years, and the government has announced that drastic measures will be required if a bailout is to be averted.

Regardless of what happens, you can be sure that obtaining a mortgage and buying a house are both due to become more difficult.

Determining the size of one’s down-payment is more complicated than it would seem. Historically, the prevailing wisdom regarding down-payments was the larger the better. During the inflating of the housing bubble, however, this logic was turned on its head, and it was even possible to take out a no-money down mortgage. As it turns out, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

Personal finance columnists usually advise a down-payment of 20% Loan-to-Value (LTV). In other words, take the size of your mortgage, multiple it by 20%, and VOILA, you have your down-payment. According to their reasoning, 20% is substantial enough both to demonstrate your creditworthiness to the lender and to cushion you from negative price swings in the value of your home.

Given the decline in housing prices, however, it’s perfectly conceivable that borrowers that made 20% down-payments are still underwater in their mortgages. After a foreclosure, then, such borrowers will be left with stains on their respective credit report, and gaping holes in their personal assets. From the lender’s perspective, meanwhile, such borrowers are actually considered less credit-worthy than those that make the minimum required down-payment. For those of you scratching your heads: It turns out that those who make down-payments between 20-25% are actually more likely to default. In addition, such borrowers aren’t required to purchase private mortgage insurance, further increasing the cost of default to the lender.

The cost of private insurance, then, can actually be recouped in the form of lower interest rates! In other words, there isn’t much of a financial penalty (sometimes even a reward!) for making a smaller down-payment. Some financial planners now encourage making the smallest allowable down-payment, based on the reasoning that borrowers can then set aside extra money in an emergency fund, making it less likely that they will become delinquent (miss payments) on their mortgage further down the road.

What is the minimum down-payment? Well, that depends on the loan, and the lender. A Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan requires a 3.5% down-payment. [However, proposed legislation would increase this to 5%]. For veterans, or those that live in rural areas, there are VA home loans and Guaranteed Rural Development loans, respectively.

For those not eligible for the loans above, it might be worth looking into a down-payment assistance program. Some of these programs are also government sponsored, and/or provide low-interest loans to be used exclusively for making a down-payment. There are also several not-for-profit companies which offer down-payment assistance, typically by rolling the down-payment into the overall loan amount, but such organizations have come under scrutiny in the wake of the collapse of the housing market. For first time home-buyers, the $8,000 tax credit can now be “monetized” and applied towards the down-payment. [Under earlier rules, the credit was received in the form of a tax credit, and hence, could not used for a down-payment.]

For those still struggling to scrape together the cash, there are a few more options available to you. First, you can talk to your lender and try to pledge securities in lieu of making a down-payment, but be advised that such is tantamount to borrowing money to buy stock. Second, if you already own the land that your home is (being) built on, that may qualify as a down-payment. Third, you can appeal to family/friends for help, but be aware that the lender will demand proof that any such assistance is a gift, rather than a loan. Finally, you might try talking to the seller, and asking him to help you make your down payment (offset in the form of a higher sale price). This will only be possible, however, if the sale price initially exceeded the appraised value.

All else being equal, a larger down-payment should translate into smaller monthly payments, as a result of both lower principal and interest. It should also lower your mortgage insurance premiums. As I noted above, however, some lenders actually penalize those who make larger down-payments. Ultimately, every situation is different, and it probably makes sense to use a mortgage calculator to crunch the numbers associated with a few different scenarios to see ultimately which one makes the most (financial) sense for you.

Over the summer, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the IRS handling of the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. Despite being published with little fanfare, the report was widely circulated and could lead to big changes to the tax treatment of mortgages.

As almost everyone who takes out a mortgage is certainly aware, mortgage interest payments are tax deductible, which means the actual interest rate paid by the borrower is often significantly lower than the rate quoted by the bank. [The precise discount depends on one's tax bracket]. However, the understanding of most borrowers doesn’t extend much beyond this, which is problematic because it turns out mortgage-related tax matters are actually quite complicated.

For example, the tax benefit can only be claimed on mortgages under $1 million, and cannot generally be increased as a result of a refinancing, unless the proceeds are used to improve one’s home. Points, which are used to buy down the interest rate when the mortgage is first issued, are deductible in the year they are paid, as are loan origination fees. Lender fees, private mortgage insurance, and other settlement costs cannot be deducted.

As for home equity loans, the limit is $100,000. Paradoxically, the proceeds from a home equity loan cannot be used in relation to the home in order to be eligible for the deduction, but can be used for almost anything else, from credit card payments to school tuition, etc. If the borrower is subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), however, the opposite applies, and the proceeds MUST be used towards the improvement of the home in order for the interest to be tax deductible. Confused yet? If so, the chart below represents the best summary of the IRS rules I have ever come across and should be a great reference when it comes time to file your taxes!

The IRS doesn’t make things easier. According to the GAO assessment, taxpayers have to go through as many as 13 steps to determine first whether mortgage interest is tax deductible, second whether points are deductible, and third the size of any deduction. Included in the official tax forms is a handy flow chart, which borrowers can theoretically use to complete these steps. However, the increasing majority of taxpayers that use tax preparation software to file probably doesn’t ever see this chart. To make matters worse, the GAO report found that such software uses inconsistent methods to determine tax detectability, sometimes even asking the borrower to make the determination/calculation himself.

The main purpose of the report was to assess the ability of the IRS to properly determine and manage mistakes in mortgage tax issues, and in this aspect, the report was scathing. Due both to inadequate resources and insufficient information about taxpayers’ mortgages, mistakes were often allowed to slide. Although, the GAO found that the claimed deduction was understated as often as it was overstated, so the net result is probably a wash for the government.

In any event, it seems clear that something has to change. Either the IRS has to streamline paperwork associated with the mortgage tax deduction, or the government needs to revamp the rules. When you consider that the deduction costs the government $80 Billion in foregone tax revenues per year – especially in the context of the current budget problems – this could conceivably become a major political issue.