Your “cost” is $50k(?). I think you said $60k in your previous post but I think you meant $50k?
No. I specifically meant sixty thousand dollars in my example. What goes in the "COST" box includes the value of the structure *AND* the land. So in my example that's $60K, not $50K.
Then in the "COST OF LAND" box it's $10K. The program will "do the math" in the background and assign $50K to the structure and that $50K is what gets depreciated over the next 27.5 years. Remember, land is *never* depreciable.
So your “Cost of land” is $30k.
Again, no. You are not allocating 100% of the land to the rental. Only 33%. Therefore the cost of land in my example would be $10K.
Now that's just "my" way of doing this. There is another way to do this and I suspect you are confusing yourself with that "other way". Could this be the case? If so, would you like me to cover that "other way" also, in the chance that may be the way you're thinking? (Both ways are legal, but may not result in the same "bottom line number" for depreciation as the end result
