Leaderboard

I love all you people like a nerd loves math class.

As other commenters have noted, the 'advice' given by the IRS fellow was plainly and simply wrong and bespeaks someone who wouldn't know the difference between a bowl of jelly and apoisonous jelly fish. The provisions of innocent spouse necessarily presuppose the existence of a marriage; therefore, whatever the spouse may have done prior to the marriage is moot. Now, as to injured spouse: although this shouldn't happen, nevertheless, if A marries B in 2013 (jointly), and A has liabilities that precede the marriage, the IRS computer is programmed to offset any refund from spouse B (after marriage) to spouse A's liabilities: spouse B should indeed file an 8379 with the original joint return (as a pre-emptive matter) - AND THE IRS MUST RESTORE THE OFFSET. PS: I don't use caps often - but the galloping ignorance on the part of the IRS person simply frosts my drawers. Yes, as someone here observed, it is getting worse, much worse.

I found a little more information by Googling, and I quote: At its heart, this whole matter is about the fact that Sundance Television Ltd was an S Corporation. Such a status means that the privately held entity doesn’t pay federal taxes because its profits and losses are directly passed on to it small group of shareholders. They, like Redford in this case, report that information on their personal income tax filings. Redford owned all of Sundance T.V., which owned 20% of Sundance Channel before the 2005 sale. “Plaintiff did not use his ownership interest in INC, nor did he use his indirect ownership interest in Limited or Channel, in any trade or business carried on by him in New York,’ the July 30 filing for Redford by Stephen Solomon of NYC firm Hutton & Solomon says. “Further, plaintiff did not have any property, payroll or receipts located in or deemed attributable to the conduct of a trade or business in New York.’ Redford’s lawyer wants a ruing that his client doesn’t owe NY the money plus all legal fees paid for by the state. What makes this more complicated is that in 2008 Sundance T.V. and its Sundance Channel co-owners CBS and NBCUniversal sold the outlet to the Cablevision owned Rainbow Media. Now known as AMC Networks, they gave the Channel the new moniker SundanceTV starting in February this year. In that 2008 sale the state of New York agreed with the very argument that Redford is making now over the 2005 partial sale.

As far as the residency issue, I noticed that Redford had partners "at NBCUniversal and CBS" and I wonder if they had enough nexus with New York to cause New York to go after the profits on the sale from all of the partners. Even if Redford is a non-resident, if the LLC is either formed in New York or has sufficient nexus to New York, he could be personally liable for taxes to New York I would think, since an LLC is typically a pass though entity. Hard to do anything but speculate without more details.

I know It got out of hand many many times but I did learn a lot by reading the posts!

Thanks, I'm glad you saw it that way, that was how I saw it when we started it. But several people saw it as very divisive, and more importantly, it had tapered off a lot, but did seem to bring out the worst in a few members. We just decided that with few participating, and yet a couple of members still getting 'warnings' there due to the nastiness of their posts, closing it was for the best. I liked the idea of discussing ideas with the members here, as I respect most here for their knowledge and intelligence. But I don't want the anger that political debate stirs in some to poison the tone of the whole board. I was surprised how vicious a few got there. So better to end it, I think. It was actually my suggestion, in fact, but Eric and Judy both agreed.

A stipend is defined as a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses. The income from stipends is reportable. Is the stipend or fee paid to an employee or an independent contractor? The answer to this question determines the way that the stipend is reported. Payments of scholarships, fellowships, and grants paid to U.S. citizens and resident aliens are not generally reportable to the IRS and are not generally subject to withholding of tax. However, payments of taxable scholarships, fellowships, and grants to nonresident aliens are generally reportable to the IRS and are generally subject to withholding of U.S. Federal income tax. Stipends, tuition waivers, or any other financial aid paid to or on behalf of NONRESIDENT ALIENS which require the recipient to perform services past, present, or future, in exchange for the financial aid are taxable as wages, are reportable to IRS on Forms 941 and W-2, and are subject to the withholding rules discussed under "Wages Paid to Aliens". I'd suspect that a stipend that large does require some services, making it SE income, but you need to contact the school to be sure.

Even with the different font, people who are not frequent posters might miss that subtlety and take a post as a serious one. Maybe Eric can include a sarcastic smiley in the overhaul.

I used the Edison quote while raising financial support for my church's volunteers (including me!) to Appalachia Service Project.

They have been. Look up "Tampa Bay Gangs giving up drug dealing for Tax Fraud"

But, KC, you have to remember that because you know who all the posters are; does not mean that we all do. Had I know that the post in question was made by Atticus, I would NEVER have questioned it. Sorry for the confusion. The written word can be interpreted in may different ways; especially when on the fly.....

It proved to be an issue with my security software. After shutting it down the return rolled over ok. I restarted my security software and then went in and made some adjustments.

I have never advised clients to cheat or conceal cash income. They are capable of figuring it out for themselves if they are dishonest. How did you get the idea that my comment was advice to a client? If I said that shooting someone in the head with a gun would be an effective way to kill them, would you think that was the advice I gave clients. You really should apologize for making that assertation.

No, lol. I just had a little time to help, and I learned something from it too. A win-win.

I have a 77 year old client who has had a 401-K for a number of years. She was not aware of the RMD rules and has not taken any distributions from the plan after she reached 70.5. What are the chances of her taking the missed distributions and getting a waiver of penalty on 5329? Se makes just enough to get by in wages, SS, and a small pension ($833/yr) I really don't have a good feeling about this.

You need to communicate with the bank, since given the details, the RMD was zero. If necessary, [belt and suspenders logic] file the 5329s showing the amount of the RMD as zero, with the reason being that she still worked for the company that she had the 401K with. What you want is to prevent the issue from arising down the road when her health may have changed and she not be able to deal with it. And need all the money for her care.

I swear I did not have a conversation with your client....

^ that, exactly. Atticus is one of our long time members that would never suggest that someone cheat like that. Hmm, donuts...time to eat the donuts. Thanks for that suggestion, Rita.

It was tongue in cheek, and spot on. I got a new client yesterday that told me the lady giving her record keeping advice (not an accountant) told her not to record the cash. I told her what I thought about that. It aggravates the living daylights out of me, and it is cheating. My guess is it happens all the time. And people get away with it. I think a great number of them also receive entitlements. Wow, now I just want to go home and eat donuts.

The IRS might look at your bank statements, so to keep the total low, take checks to the bank of the client and cash them. Pay all of your grocery bills in cash and report income that equals or slightly exceeds your deposits. There is no way the IRS can catch all cheaters. Anyone who does not get a W-2 or 1099 for all of his income can cheat, but if you cheat too much, the IRS can add up all of your living expenses and if they exceed your income, you would be in trouble. I had a semi-retired lawyer client who only reported about $7000 income back 25 or 30 years ago. The IRS assessed him more tax based on their calculation of his cost of living.

Anthony Weiner just opened a new restaurant in NYC. The specialty of the house is a 3 inch wiener, of which he will happily email you a photo even if you don't want to see it.

SOME COMMENTS IN ACCOUNTING TODAY ON THIS ARTICLE:

No one that is liberal will admit to the fact that "loopholes" = Tax law provisions as passed by Congress. I doubt if a single liberal would go along with removing all tax deductions and credits from their OWN tax return. Corporations doing this are only exercising their freedom of choice under out current tax laws. Therefore, if you yell "UNFAIR TAX LOOPHOLE" and you still take deductions and credits on your tax return, you are a mindless, selfish hypocrite! My name is Jack from Ohio and I approved this message!!!