Proposed HUD rule on RV USE Definition

[D_E_Bishop]

There was an article on Yahoo News this morning regarding a proposed change in the definition of the use of Vehicular Homes(RVs). It appears to be designation changes for under 400 sq. ft. Link to article below;

Clicky

It appears to me to be a foothold in changing the Tax Code regarding the deduction of interest paid on motor homes under the Second Home Rule. It sounds like it will effect all motor homes purchased before the rule is passed by the HUD regulatory Board.

Your Opinions Please.

[hotbyte]

Sam Spade wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:
The amount of misinformation floating around about this basic rewording of the long standing (1982) HUD RV definition is simply amazing.

As is the number of participants here who don't follow the day to day conversations and then jump in and post the same (mis)information for the 35th time. 😞

As well as replies complaining about reposts when the fact of reposting was already pointed out to OP in the topic thread.

[Community Alumni]

"Can you just imagine? An RV with no problems?"


HAHAHA! Good one!

[korbe]

Sam Spade wrote:

D.E.Bishop wrote:

I'll try harder to read and remember every post on the forums.

That statement is ridiculous and you know it.

Geeze SS, get a life..... :R

[Dutch_12078]

Does this part of the HUD RV definition "prohibit" fulltiming in any way?

Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.

That's taken exactly from the CURRENT definition that's been in place since 1982. I don't see anything any different in the new wording as proposed, and I don't know of anyone that's decided not to full time because of it.

[westernrvparkow]

DutchmenSport wrote:
I posted on the previous threads, this is n attempt for HUD to tighten the financial belt who they guarantee home loans to by redefining what is a "house" and what is an "RV." Park Models 400 square feet are the real problem. HUD already will not guarantee a home loan on an RV. AND there is nothing keeping anyone from full timing in an RV. You just can't get a HUD home guaranteed loan to purchase an RV. (but that already exists.) It may also eliminate any possibility of calling an RV a "second home" and subject to tax write off for income tax purposes. But as far as the RV life-style ... I don't see any impact at all.

It won't effect the mortgage deduction either. The IRS and HUD are separate entities. The IRS definition for a second home is clear. Many Boats qualify, many RVs qualify and it is possible to build something over 400 sq. Feet that does not qualify (i.e. build a barn for horse on a chunk of land you own, that isn't a second home). This is all about Government insured mortgages and protecting the consumer from being suckered into buying an RV that isn't suitable for full time living. (we can all thank the Tiny Home movement if such a movement really exists and isn't just a product of reality TV for HUD suddenly becoming interested in this.)

[fla-gypsy]

As with most things the Fed Govt does somehow it will end up costing us money. We can only speculate at this point.

[fj12ryder]

D.E.Bishop wrote:
OP here, and I am sorry that I don't search the forums for to see if something I am about to post has been posted 45 times before. It appeared to be a new item and I thought it might be of interest because the change of definition may lead to the loss of the second home interest deduction on the federal taxes.

I should have guessed from the cut off date for comments that it was at least 6 months old.

I'll try harder to read and remember every post on the forums.

Exactly how does the HUD rule affect RV USE? This ruling has to do with defining what is a "house" and what isn't. It may affect how you can deduct taxes on your RV, maybe, but how would a ruling like that affect how an RV is actually used?

[dahkota]

WyoTraveler wrote:
This is most likely a way that RVIA and RVDA can help the RV industry. If the RV industry was required to maintain more quality standards, like HUD, the consumer may get better RVs. Can you just imagine? An RV with no problems?:B

Could you imagine both the cost and the weight of any RV built to HUD standards? Just take a look at the tiny homes on trailers. A 20' tiny home with an 8K lb. dry weight is listed at $58K. And that dry weight doesn't include the options like a kitchen or bathroom.

[Sam_Spade]

D.E.Bishop wrote:

I'll try harder to read and remember every post on the forums.

That statement is ridiculous and you know it.

Just try harder to remember the SUBJECT of things that have been posted before; especially those that show up more than once.

And if a search, for HUD for instance, brings up 50 or more hits, there is a pretty good chance..........

[D_E_Bishop]

OP here, and I am sorry that I don't search the forums for to see if something I am about to post has been posted 45 times before. It appeared to be a new item and I thought it might be of interest because the change of definition may lead to the loss of the second home interest deduction on the federal taxes.

I should have guessed from the cut off date for comments that it was at least 6 months old.

I'll try harder to read and remember every post on the forums.

[WyoTraveler]

This is most likely a way that RVIA and RVDA can help the RV industry. If the RV industry was required to maintain more quality standards, like HUD, the consumer may get better RVs. Can you just imagine? An RV with no problems?:B

[Dutch_12078]

korbe wrote:
I do know that designing RV and mobile home parks will change. Manufacturers and park developers use the strict definitions on what can and cannot happen. We can create "motels on wheels" and the construction standards are not nearly as strict as a standard motel. HUD doesn't like that too much.

All this wording change does is make the difference between RV's and manufactured housing clearer, eliminating the current grey area affecting some park models and potentially some large 5'vers if HUD decided to stop ignoring them. The change codifies that difference instead of it being dependent on the current HUD administration's position on the difference. Basically, under the proposed wording if a manufacturer says its product meets the NFPA 1192 standards for RV's or the ANSI A119.5 standards for park models RV's, it does NOT fall within HUD's jurisdiction. I see nothing there that would change park designs, either RV or manufactured housing. The same basic definition has existed since 1982 as far as the intended purpose of an RV goes, and that does not change with the new clearer wording.

[SolidAxleDurang]

Oh god... Someone make it stop.

[korbe]

I do know that designing RV and mobile home parks will change. Manufacturers and park developers use the strict definitions on what can and cannot happen. We can create "motels on wheels" and the construction standards are not nearly as strict as a standard motel. HUD doesn't like that too much.