Unread Content 30 Days

Yes, my point exactly. The OP has a client where NO Forms 8332 are used. This leaves his client at the mercy of her ex and open to a position that will take a lot of time working with the IRS to clear up/validate her return/receive her potential refund or confirm her balance due payment. OP seems to want a 8332 each year, alternating which person signs/provides. This is not the way either. Identify the custodial parent first. Your 2nd paragraph is a great solution. However, your 3rd paragraph shows why it's not a one & done. Maybe that's why OP wants to see an 8332 every year; however, it's even years only if his client is the noncustodial parent. No matter what, he needs to identify the custodial parent first. [me] "Did Jack give you an 8332?" might not be the next question to ask...

To clarify, if custodial parent signs 8332 and also claims the child, then IRS will disallow the claim by custodial parent and allow to noncustodial parent per the signed release. The noncustodial parent needs to be proactive and request the 8332 for not only the current year in part I, but also for future years in part II. The noncustodial parent also needs to be aware that custodial parent can revoke for future years by filing an additional 8332 and filling in part III. In that case, the custodial parent must attach a copy of the 8332 as proof of the revocation.

Exactly. But the OP seemed to want a 8332 each year for the one claiming the dependency that year -- when it's the custodial parent who's qualified to claim the child for all purposes but can give the dependency via 8332 -- in the OP's scenario, every other year. The dependency can go back and forth, but the custodial parent is an IRS qualification and not due to a divorce decree. So who gives (or refuses to give) the 8332 doesn't change (unless the child's living situation changes). If his client is the custodial parent, she will never receive an 8332. She can choose to give an 8332 in odd years -- in the OP's scenario. If she's the non-custodial parent, she can request an 8332 from the custodial parent, again per the OP in even years, and hope her ex doesn't also claim the child in even years.

But the custodial parent is not required by IRS to provide 8332; that is strictly between the two parties or legal system.

Love Rita! I was also fortunate to attend that amazing gathering and visit her again a couple of years later. Good times! Reminiscent of the camaraderie of the ATX group of users and providers in Maine. I'm guessing that not many mega software users do not have such fond memories.

About a week ago on my way to North Carolina, I stopped in at Rita's place in Crossville, TN. Yes - this is the same Rita that hosted our get-together 6-7 years ago. She looked good in her office perched on a hillside. She and I have been friends for a long time and live an hour plus away. And as I was leaving a pretty young lady came in to have her taxes done. Not a lot else to say, but for some of you that came to her place that year - I thought you like to know that she's still doing well, even though she doesn't post much. Just one of the great people who are on this board.

If your client is the custodial parent, per IRS rules, then she gives Form 8332 and does NOT receive it.

Not in the world I live in. Original cost certainly does not reflect DOD fmv of farm equipment.

So aren't you taking the same position as Fleischer v. Commissioner? Assignment of income to the Corp. Why doesn't the firm become RIA and follow the code?

You are filing an incomplete and inaccurate tax return. Filing form 8332 (or similar statement) for noncustodial parent is a requirement, not an option.

I stay out too, but sometimes you just have to say something. I was called in by one of our CPAs whose clients were setting up a trust to explain to them the tax effects. Talking with them, it was obvious they had no idea why they were doing this. They had limited assets, not much to protect, and had gone to one of those free dinners. I ended up telling them to write down a list of questions and go back to the advisor, warning them not to sign anything until they got answers. Another time a client came in with a dozen 1099Rs. His advisors were buying him annuities and cashing them out for new annuities every single month, costing him enormous fees. That one we just had to call the state insurance commissioner on.

I stay out of my client's investments, until last year, I broke my rule. Client is in a PTP for 30 days, loses $100 and the K-1 drops a few dollars of interest expense and depreciation on her. Add in my charge for Sch E page 2 and the 1256 straddle form and she lost a couple hundred bucks for a 30 day investment. I asked if she knew what the partnership did, she had no clue. So I gave her some questions to ask the advisor. She called me back and said he promised not to put her into those investments again. I never know where the line is to talk to my clients about their investments when I think they are being taken advantage of. I try to tell myself it is none of my business, but I care about my clients and it pi$$3s me off when I see these "professional advisors" putting their profits before my clients best interests. Tom Longview, TX

I had one client who had 30k in phantom income when she sold these because a large portion was currently taxable ordinary income, and the big capital losses had to be carried forward because she already had plenty of capital loss carryforwards.

I think the only factor that matters is the big commission stream earned by the broker. They have a huge conflict of interest. I explain to my clients that these partnerships were created because borrowing money from the banks is expensive and the operators didn't want to risk their own money, so they went public to get unsuspecting investors to buy in, and they pay brokers big fees to foist these investments on you.

Those are the exact figures and AGI I was getting too in order to come to that taxable portion of the SS, but I wasn't sure why mcb said the AGI was the $61, 531 and didn't look back to realize that was the orginal AGI so I didn't take the calcs any further. Thanks for continuing on with it.

I think there are two main factors. 1) A misguided (or potentially deceptive) effort to create the illusion of "diversification". In fact, these small investments have virtually no impact on performance because they are so small in relation to the size of the portfolio. Whether they gain or lose, they don't move the needle very much in the long term. But they generate lots of paperwork which conveys the illusion that they're working hard for the client. After all, my guy must really be looking out for me if these sophisticated investments require all this fancy reporting. 2) A commitment to stay focused on focusing on specific funding objectives. Client: "You said this strategy would be good for the college fund for our kids." Broker, "Oh, you must have misunderstood. I was talking about building the college fund for MY kids. These LP's/ MLP's/ REIT's pay awesome commissions!"

I'll never forget the look on my clients' faces when they bought 10 of these K1 investments, and I told them each K1 adds $75 to their tax prep bill, every year, and $150 when the each K1 is sold, so I hope they make a lot of money on these. They went back and told their broker who then called me. Of course these are prices from about 10 years ago.

Here's my guess at what is meant: Total income other than SS: 44671 Gross SS: 16860 Taxable SS: 13736 AGI (as originally stated): 58407 MAGI for Form 8962: 61531 (this assumes no tax-exempt interest/dividends) Without the year of marriage calculation, this would require a repayment of $3150 With the year of marriage calculation, the monthly contribution is $63 and repayment is $704 Form 8962 is filled out as follows with everything else blank: 1. 2 2a,3. 61531 4. 19720 (assuming other 48 states is checked) 5. 312% 7. 0.0630 8a. 3876 8b. 323 9. Yes 10. No Lines 12-22: 1256 1193 63 1130 1130 1194 24. 12430 25. 13134 26. 0 27. 704 28. 3150 29. 704 36. 1 63 01 11 ----------------------------------------------------------- If you need worksheet III for the spouse: 1. 1 2. 30766 3. 14580 4. 211% 5. 0.0244 6. 751 7. 63 8. 01 9. 11

I have never seen so many small, meaningless and unprofitable K1s in my life as I have seen this year. Almost everyone with investments has two or three of them.

Is your computer on a battery backup surge suppressor?

Don't worry about the name at this point. I can get to within $1 of your taxable SS, but playing with the numbers, I can't get to the AGI you have. I get close to your AGI number if that were on line 9, but with that taxable SS not being the full 85% of the gross benefits, I get a lower AGI than you provided. I would need each of the lines 1z, 2b, 3b, 4b, 5b, 7 & 8 from the 1040, if there is any tax exempt interest income, and whatever might be on Sch 1 to get the correct numbers flowing to the MAGI worksheet. If you want to post that, or send privately by PM, email, or call me on the phone, I can send you my contact info. I am still willing to work through this if you think I can still help in some way.

I just got off the phone with the IRS. A refund check will be issued in about 4 weeks. After my initial call, I spent about 30 minutes waiting for a call back. It took about 10 minutes to verify my client and my own identity. It took another 10 minutes for the agent to go into another system and schedule the refund check. He didn't know why the scheduled Direct Deposit never happened.

I had to uninstall and re-install my ATX software. Not sure if the thunderstorm is exactly why, but I am blaming the thunderstorm. So far I have only had to deal with 2023 and 2024. Haven't tried to open anything older yet. Kind of a pain. Has anyone else had trouble lately?

Total AGI 61531 Gross SS 16860 Taxable SS 13736 The only other thing is that I cannot get her name on the top of the 8962 without reversing the names in the setup.

If you want, I will plug in the new income numbers. If you give me: total AGI with the taxable SSA included, gross SSA, and taxable portion of the SSA I should be able to get the worksheets to show the amounts on their proper respective lines. Nothing else changed?