Leaderboard

Catherine's original question was whether these travel expenses are estate expenses. As rfassett said, there is no estate until someone dies so these expenses can't possibly be charged to the estate. There is no reason why Mom, or whoever is handling her bills, can't reimburse her sons for their travel right now, right out of her checkbook. No code or regs citations needed. Like when I drove my mom across the state to a doctor, she'd give me some gas money. Pretty much the same thing. In this case, though, I'd be sure that receipts for the travel were given to whomever is handling the checkbook. It's sad how when there is money involved, even the closest families can get into feuds after a parent passes.

Depending on the path of the hurricane, we could have anywhere from 4-10" of rain this weekend. Ugh! On the funnier side of things, our county police dept was having a some fun on Facebook this morning with the forecasting. Don't worry, they all promised to keep their day jobs.

Agree with all said above. Just a note on the executor fees (from a personal experience): An attorney insisted that the estate pay an executor fee of over $50,000 to one of my clients (sole beneficiary). Since she was a direct descendent -- her inheritance tax would have been just 4.5% in this case vs. a 35% income tax, etc. on the $50,000. Look at things through different lenses and from YOUR expertise ---- attorneys do not always know.

I think it's a ridiculously high fee. (And I can almost guarantee you she is paying more than 1.35% when you add in the hidden costs) But she might think he's worth it. After all, he drives a nice car, wears expensive suits, has a flashy office. Those things cost money, you know. I suggest you print this off and give it to her. http://johncbogle.com/speeches/JCB_AZ_Republic_3-00.pdf If she can understand plain English, it will help her make the right decision.

This thread struck a nerve with me since I have seen several clients being taken to the cleaners by brokerage houses with excessive fees. And I just learned over this past weekend about one trusted "advisor" who deservedly went to prison after stealing most of the lifetime savings of a widow I know. I have given copies of the Bogle speech referenced in the previous post to many people. Unfortunately most won't take the time to understand the very basic principles he explains. But I keep trying. Below is one of the most important sections of the speech. And to prove that Bogle hits the nail on the head, look at how uninformed and mathematically challenged financial advisors constantly rage against total market index investing in a low cost fund. Try as hard as they wish, they ALWAYS fall victim to the inevitable, persistent truth of simple mathematical certainty. Facts are a stubborn thing. "There are lots of croupiers in the stock market casino. Fund managers and operators; salesmen who sell fund shares; investment brokers who execute fund portfolio transactions. Even the Federal Government finds itself among the croupiers, for fund portfolio turnover generates realized capital gains, and therefore taxes. Given all of these subtractions from the market’s return, the good plan relies on this surprising, if obvious, rule for measuring investment success. The central task of investing is to realize the highest possible portion of the annual rate of return earned in the financial asset class in which you invest—recognizing, and accepting, that that portion will be less than 100%. Let me explain. It is simply a mathematical impossibility—a definitional contradiction—for all investors as a group to reach 100% of the stock market’s annual return. Yes, it is possible to select funds that succeed in earning, say, 105% of the market’s annual return. But the odds against doing so are about 25 to one as I noted earlier. Further, history also tells us that the probable outcome is that the average fund will earn only about 80% of the market return. If this is iconoclasm, so be it. But fund shareholders as a group face just such a shortfall, and recognizing that fact is the first step toward developing a good plan for equity investing. There is an optimal—and obvious—way to closely approach the 100% target: Simply own the market. It is easy. An all-stock-market index fund, in substance, owns shares in every publicly-held business in America, and holds it for as long as the business exists. By slashing the croupiers’ take, such ownership is available at extremely low cost: No advisory fee; no sales charges; virtually no portfolio turnover and therefore nominal transaction costs, few realized gains, and minimal taxes. The all-market index fund is the croupier’s dark nightmare, and the investor’s bright dream. The simplest of all approaches to equity investing, then, is to invest solely in the shares of a single all-market equity index fund—just one fund. It is a good plan. And it works, regularly producing more than 98% of the market’s pre-tax return."

2015...Draft Tax Forms: http://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/draftTaxForms.html

That's true in places where rain is normal, like MD, but out here where it almost NEVER rains, it soon goes from 'dormant' to DEAD IF YOU DON'T WATER IT AT LEAST OCCASIONALLY.

Personal expenses - no deduction. If there would be a deduction for those costs, then I would think the recipients would have to pick up those funds as taxable income. And even then, you might bump into the assignment of income issues (or some such thing). No site - just years and years of making an effort to try to make this stuff make sense. And further, all of these costs are for the living - therefore, they have nothing to do with the estate. There is no decedent's estate based upon your statement of facts. No one has, as of your posting, died. The three brothers need to be commended for stepping up. But I think that is where it stays. If they do get "reimbursed" I would leave it for what it is - a gift in an effort to say "thanks". You asked for opinions - those are mine.

The 10 years did not start to run till you filed the return. I would try first to obtain a partial pay installment agreement.

Another answer for #5 is this: Clocky, the run-away alarm clock

Will was "standard" so to speak. Attorney just "always did it that way" supposedly to lower inheritance tax -- which would have done that BUT never looked or considered the income tax implications. Just an FYI -- and I am NOT an attorney and NOT practicing law ---- the executrix did decline after we talked. I do not believe (but do not know for sure either) that the "fee" was re-added to the estate inheritance tax --- so the attorney did not file with that amount included, etc.. Several other issues but the executrix just wanted it to be done --- so no follow up, just closure. She was happy and I was happy for her too. She had the documents and if questioned, it all would fall back on the attorney.

I agree with Ron and will go one step further. Deductible medical travel/transportation includes those expenses for the patient, and someone accompanying, for the patient to get medical care or treatment. In your case, the mom isn't traveling anywhere. Also, specifically excluded from deductible medical travel expenses are those that are merely for the general improvement of one's health, so even if the travel we are discussing was the mom's travel, the travel to interview and hire specific caregivers (vs say, choosing an agency from recommendations or others' feedback) would more likely be related to generally improving mom's situation as opposed to receiving specific medical care or treatment. The travel for sons to get to mom is personal commuting, nothing more. If mom wants to help the sons through her estate beyond their inheritance and reward one or more of them over other siblings or beneficiaries, she can bump up their share of the inheritance or increase the executor fee they might receive. Of course, any executor fee would be taxable income to the recipient.

additional services could be tax prep, trustee fees, the fee may include other accounts not being charged at all (Charitable trust), they may have foreign accounts with additional paperwork, there may be concierge services for the family including some legal representation included in the fee. There may be direct ownership of real estate management fees included as asset fees. The client may have chosen a day trading type service. Every firm offers a different variety of services. The flat fee versus paying individually per hour or per trade as a commission isn't an easy answer. A local journalist declared that any financial professional charging a commission was a suspect for over charging - horrible thought process IMO. Paying $500 to buy $40,000 of Exxon Mobil to own the next 40 years isn't a bad choice if they are providing you services. Paying .5% per year to own a 20 year bond? It's also easy to declare that anyone can do it on their own. The same could be said about tax preparation. We all know that's not the reality.

I don't agree with the above statement on when the 10 year statute began, and the OP didn't provide enough information for anyone here to determine that. Here's a snippet from the IRS manual on collection procedures, specifically about the the "Collection Statute Expiration Date" or CSED as abbreviated below. First, we don't know when a Substitute for Return was generated by the IRS or when the first deficiency assessment was dated. That is the date when the 10-year collection period starts, and that date is not adjusted later on if the taxpayer files an "original" return that then replaces the SFR created by the IRS. Here's that section from the manual I linked from: 5.1.19.3.15 (01-01-2006) Substitute for ReturnWhen a taxpayer fails to file a timely income tax return or files a false or fraudulent return, the Service may execute a return under the authority of the IRC 6020(b) deficiency procedures. If the taxpayer fails to respond to the 90 day notice, the Service makes a deficiency assessment. The Service may also make a deficiency assessment if the deficiency is upheld by the Tax Court. Upon that assessment, the 10 year period of limitations on collection, provided for in IRC 6502(a)(1) begins. If the taxpayer later files their own "original" return showing a tax liability smaller than the assessed liability, and that return is accepted by the Service as filed, the tax liability may be reduced to show the amount of tax reflected on the taxpayer's return. The original CSED date remains intact. If the taxpayer's "original" return reflects more tax than that assessed from the statutory notice based on the section 6020(b) return, then an additional assessment is input for the increased amount. In this scenario, the original CSED remains intact and a second CSED will be systemically established based on the additional assessment.

Closing a return creates a backup in: C:\ProgramData\CCH Small Firm Services\ATX 2014 Server\ATX 2014 Backup I Ctrl+s almost every time before I jump to another form. I have autosave turned off, in case I screw something up or if I'm just doing "what ifs" in the data file.

This is one of the reasons that I have a jump drive on board whenever I am working on a tax return. I export the return to the jump drive any time I make any major changes and, of course, when it is finished. This also allows you to import any return into the program on another computer for whatever reason.

For the record, AutoSave has not worked since 2011. If you start a new return, not rolled over, and do not save before or when you close, it will be blank when you go back. ATX better have this fixed for 2015, or I will send an e-mail twice a day, and make a phone call a day till they do.

The first thing to determine, which the OP did not mention, is whether the debt was recourse or nonrecourse. If nonrecourse, there is no cancellation of debt income (CODI) but there is still a sale of the property. " For nonrecourse debt, the amount realized is the greater of the outstanding debt of all loans immediately before the foreclosure or fair market value of the property plus the proceeds received from the foreclosure (e.g., relocation payment from the lender). The adjusted basis immediately before the foreclosure is subtracted from the amount realized to determine the gain or loss." "IRC §7701(g) states that the sales price is the greater of the FMV or the outstanding loan balance for nonrecourse loans to determine the gain or loss." In your case, $50k - adjusted basis = gain on sale. The gain cannot be excluded on Form 982, which applies only to CODI. If recourse, then you have both CODI and the sale. In this case, "Cancellation of debt income is determined by the outstanding debt balance immediately before the foreclosure (minus debt liable after the foreclosure) minus the fair market value of the property equals the cancellation of debt income." In your case, this is zero because FMV was greater than the debt. For the sale, "The amount realized is the lesser of the fair market value of the property or outstanding debt balance." Thus, $45k - adjusted basis = gain on sale. All these quotes are from the Audit Techniques Guide http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Foreclosure-ATG-Chapter-2-Type-of-Debt The IRS has numerous pubs covering foreclosures and cancellation of debt. I'm giving you the distilled version. You might want to verity the FMV reported by the lender. If the lender sold the property shortly after foreclosing on it, you can certainly use the sales price as the FMV and attach a note to the return. (Only if it's in your client's favor, of course ) If a lender forecloses and cancels debt in the same year, they will usually only issue a 1099C. I have rarely seen both a 1099A and 1099C for the same property.