Talk:Nonrecourse debt

Business Unassessed

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Taxation Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Merge voting

Nonrecourse debt and Non-recourse debt seem to be the same thing. Decide on which term is better and we can merge it there. Ted 01:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use Non-recourse debt

Add here if you want this the main article. Use "*" for each line for proper formatting.

Whether it is nonrecourse or non-recourse debt, it is difficult to find without the "debt." I searched for nonrecourse, recourse, nonrecourse claim, and recourse claim without finding the webpage. Maybe these can be established as redirects? Schmorrell (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use Nonrecourse debt

Add here if you want this the main article. Use "*" for each line for proper formatting.

This is Boundlessly, the author of non-recourse debt. I have merged my work into nonrecourse debt. Redirect non-recourse debt to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.138.184 (talk • contribs)
I would feel more comfortable if you signed in as Boundlessly and posted this. I'm that kind of person. :( Ted 02:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems to be in order. The articles appear to be already merged and the person who created the other version of the article wants this one as well.--SomeStranger ^(t|c) 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tax consequences

Famspear, Thanks for taking a crack at cleaning up the discussion of Crane, Tufts and Woodsam in nonrecourse debt. But it still doesn't make sense. Could you take another look? When are we talking about the creditor, and when are we talking about the debtor? Boundlessly 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I have done a semi-major reworking, and eliminated some of the confusing language. Yours, Famspear 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famspear, excellent job! I was in progress of doing the exact same kind of edit. When I tried to save it I got the error message of someone else editing the section.EECavazos 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Famspear 00:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowing against the property but not investing the proceeds in the property

Dear Boundlessly: Subsequent borrowing against the property (after you own it), using the property as collateral, has no effect on basis in the property. Remember, even the original financing ITSELF has no direct effect on basis. The reason that borrowing money indirectly gives you basis is that you INVEST THE LOAN PROCEEDS in the property itself.

Think of it as accounting debits and credits.

Original purchase, at 100% financing, of a $100,000 property:

Debit: Investment in property $100,000 Credit: Loan payable $100,000

Subsequent borrowing of, say, $5,000, using the property as collateral, and using the $5,000 to take a Las Vegas vacation:

Debit: Cash (or non-deductible personal living expenses - vacation) 5,000 Credit: Loan payable 5,000

Since the $5,000 didn't go into the property, it doesn't affect basis. Essentially, it's the DEBIT side of the entry that gives you basis, not the credit side. Yours, Famspear 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it doesn't matter whether the debt is recourse or nonrecourse. If you borrow money against the property but you do not invest those proceeds IN THE PROPERTY, your borrowing has no effect on basis.

Similarly, in the example of above, if you later PAY OFF the debt against the property (reducing the debt to zero), that payoff of the debt does not increase your basis - the payoff has absolutely no effect on basis. When you pay a debt you are not really "paying off the property" (indeed, "paying off the property" here is just a figure of speech). You are paying off the debt. Remember, your basis in the example above was already $100,000. Paying off the debt of $100,000 (or $105,000 or whatever) would not increase your basis by $100,000. If it did, your total basis would end up as $200,000 (or $205,000, or whatever). That would make no sense.

Again, it's not the BORROWING ITSELF that gives you basis or increases basis. And it's not the payoff itself that decreases basis. Yours, Famspear 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lender of non-recourse debt depends crucially on an accurate assessment of the credit of the borrower, and a sound knowledge of the underlying technical domain as well as financial modeling skills.

I removed that from the first paragraph because non-recourse lending is supposed to remove the borrower's ability to pay or lack thereof from the equation entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.118.176 (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed ongoing spam -- June 2010

I have again removed spam edits and links that continue to be added/reverted despite repeated requests for discussion. Edit summaries are not substitutes for discussion, and ongoing willful ignorance of Wikipedia policies is wearing thin. Flowanda | Talk 07:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The association part is not mine, so I removed it, it did look like spam. However, all other links are verified by myself, an attorney barred in PA and NJ, as well as by existing public documents and case law that I reference on my website. It is not willful ignorance, I understand the Wikipedia policies. Nevertheless, all information asserted on my website is independently verifiable, drafted by an attorney and references legal scholarly work. --Schytzophrenic (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody looked at the second paragraph of this page? It sounds like one person's personal attack on the article.