Leaderboard

Actually, he is. I'm not saying I'm a better tax professional than he is, but I'm a better tax professional than he is.

I've been off our site for a few weeks--mostly because of working some long hours. Sometimes the combination of taxes and politics just gets a little too intense. I have some pretty strong political ideas of my own. It was hard to like someone on the general chat forum, then see another side of their personality on the politics forum that totally changed my perception of them--sometimes in a negative way. So I just didn't go there. I am interested in coming to this site and leaving feeling a little better, a little richer for the experience. These changes will be a refreshing upgrade.

Even if an accountable plan was in place, the situation Rita describes where the pastor is traveling from his home to his place of employment, that travel is commuting. If he actually worked at both A and B, after he'd go to one place, then the travel from the first place to the second would be deductible, but not a situation where he goes from home to only one of the locations. I'd say there's no deduction.

Think Your Skin is Damage Free? They Did Too Until Faced With Shock of Truth-Telling UV Light

Two Ritas agree that traveling to work is commuting, no matter where the pay is issued from. It's really a slam-dunk if he has only one place of work -- commuting. As you say, there can be dozens of alternatives if a second workplace or temporary assignment or...come into play, but that's not what you posted. Commuting.

I agree with Judy -- even if he did not work at A, but was required to *report* there (for who knows what reason) on a daily basis, it *might* work with that accountable plan. But that's not the case here. No deduction. If they pay him for the mileage regardless, then it has to go on his W-2 and be subject to employment taxes (which themselves might be different for clergy, depending on if he has opted out of SocSec). So it's possible it still might be worth it to him - but at the lower income levels that clergy frequently have, check carefully for tax bracket bumping!

Instead of the beneficiaries getting the personal residence exclusion, they should get a stepped-up basis. There may not be any gain since the estate's basis in the residence is the value at the date of death (or 6 months later if the alternate valuation date was elected.) For most estates recently, this has meant a slight loss once the closing costs were factored in since even though real estate values have recovered somewhat they are not trending upward in any great hurry. At least this has been my experience.

Very little in the way of political beliefs would make me dislike a person, even if I totally disagreed with them. I am conservative on most issues, but I don't dislike a person just because he is a liberal (unless he is an elected official).

Two Ritas also agree on that. (And, I have letters after my name, such as EA, MBA, and OLD LADY.)

My parents bought me and my brother a horse. No helmet, no lessons, an old english saddle, no restrictions, no supervison. We fell off so many times I can't even count. We loved that horse! We made it! Now I have five!

Nope, you were not wrong. That old link is correct, at the time. But it changed again after 2010.

David, I've been trying off and on today to find something for you that says the exclusion is still available to be used against gains on sales by estates or heirs, but I believe Lion is correct. This exclusion WAS available in 2010 only, and that's why the first linked document says "for sales after Dec 31, 2009". As far as I can find, in 2010 this was covered in IRC sec 121(d)(9) , that frustratingly now reads as something completely different. If you look at this site, on page 4 of the right-hand column, in very fine print you'll see the amendments for 2010, the temporary additions of the words that would have extended the exclusion to estates and heirs. It's the last line of that first block in the amendments section. Hope that makes sense. Here's that site for the actual code: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleA-chap1-subchapB-partIII-sec121.pdf

Well, 2010 was an oddball year. So a little confusion re a 2011 DOD is understandable. Blame it on the changing tax law, and remind them that no one's perfect. Forcing 2014 into your 2013 software, because they were in a rush. You'll fix it now. Blah, blah, blah. Say it with a sincere face and offer them a discount next year (or this year if they haven't paid yet).

I'm with you, Rita. His "normal place of work" will be church B, no matter where the paycheck comes from. Just imagine if that 'other accountant's logic was applied to Lowe's or Walmart, where the 'employer' is probably in another location for 99.999% of all employees. Since this is not a 'temporary assignment', church A is not his 'tax home', nor does it sound like the distance from A to B is significant even if it was a 'temp' assignment.

The decedent did not reside in the house after death. (I hope!) The estate never resided in the house. Did any of the beneficiaries reside in the house? The house was not a personal residence after DOD, unless one of the benes moved in. No personal residence exclusion. Was the house rented for profit? Step up or down. Inherited = long-term capital treatment.

Would not the capital gains be treated simply as long term gains on the sale of inherited property with any tax due being paid by the heirs ?

i see you like the post count idea but you know the level will be set at 4,000 so you have some more postings to do!!!! /s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s Actually Catherine, your n/t posts are some of my favorite.