Leaderboard

Rita is correct. Don't feel like that, and please continue to ask questions because that is what the forum is here for. This is a new area of law for us with a lot of complexity, and of course we have many definitions of MAGI in the tax code depending on what limitation we are working with. It's very understandable what happened with your calcs.

That's funny. I just threw my college accounting books from the early 70's in the trash this past week. They were on the office bookshelf. It felt good to dump them.

For those that like DWS, can you imagine this song being danced too. https://youtu.be/GEdXagVh-Rs

Assets in a Partnership can have outside basis and inside basis which are not the same, so the basis of asset in the hands of a partner can easily be different from the Partnership's Book Basis.

I've used IntelliConnect for a few years. It gets better each year, and I learn more about using it each year. I can access it from within ProSystem fx and from any browser and on my iPhone. If within a return, it takes me right to info re that line. If you have young staffers who Google everything, you can have your browser return the IntelliConnect results right at the top of your browser results. You can choose by Code or Regs or Explanations or Charts or.... I can print out just the highlighted passage I need, but it includes the source for me. I can save to my-named folders, such as CT or Property Regs. Take any webinars that are available and use the built-in help and videos to learn it.

Remember - heck @kcjenkins - my card SAYS so right on its face.

Since star wars is launching in a few days, you may want this long ago photo (nostalgia):

For the ladies (my first written) For all those who really care (political correct version):

Thank you, KC. jmdavis mentioned "corporation" as it differs from partnership handling of property distributions. I was typing all of this immediately after KC answered and then I had a lengthy interruption: To answer Lion, partnership taxation is one of the most complex of entities, so I'll answer only in a general sense as it relates to property distributed in non-liquidation as opposed to retirement, death of a partner, etc. If property (other than money) is distributed to a partner from the partnership not in complete liquidation, then the partner's basis is the adjusted basis of the property in the partnership immediately prior to the distribution, but that adjusted basis can NOT exceed the partner's basis. From the discussion so far you probably have a good idea of areas you'd like to brush up on, so in that regard if you'd like to start a separate topic on partnership taxation or sources of good research materials or CPE on the subject, perhaps you should start a separate topic. I'd like to get this thread back to the OP's subject and try to keep it on point. Thanks.

Yes. Think of partnerships as a collection of sole-proprietors. They can pick up their marbles and go home, anytime.

Don't feel like that! I have an insurance agent friend on FaceBook putting out completely incorrect information about ACA, the penalty, etc. Do you think I'm going to correct him?? Heck, no. Then I'll have eight million non-clients sending ME questions. He's the only one getting paid to understand this crap. I resent so much having to deal with this. Yes, I know, someone will say, "Charge accordingly". Well there's no way, in Small Town, TN, that I can charge enough to cover the time I spend on ACA without losing clients.

How did a corporation get into this? Yardley said it was a partnership. While it might have been set up as a Joint Venture at the beginning, it was set up as a partnership, so I'm assuming the property is titled to that partnership. Thus they can not just convert it to any other form of entity without taking the proper legal steps to dissolve that partnership.

Thank you, Mr. Davis. Then is the adjusted cost basis in the hands of the partner receiving the asset the same as the book value to the corporation when it distributes the asset? Holding period for depreciation? Glad I don't have any partnerships holding real property now. I brush up by taking classes when I get something new in my practice. You and this board help me know what I need to study!

These are the folks that regulate us (or want to) but apparently have too little to do (so they look for more trivial things). Here is the URL for the article on MSN: "Is IRS proposal kiss of death for charities?" http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/nonprofit/is-irs-proposal-kiss-of-death-for-charities/ar-AAghY9W?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=U147DHP Here is an excerpt: What’s wrong with the current regime for substantiating charitable gifts? Bizarrely, the Treasury notes in the proposal that the current system works “effectively, with the minimal burden on donors and donees.”

For some people, charities are little more than competition to greater government service dollars. If an all powerful centralized government is the answer in the war on poverty, surely claims against their wealth and power are destructive? There have been comments lately that even charitable hospitals are undermining the greater good because they are avoiding the payment of due tax dollars.

If Joe will still be involved in this rental then it seems to me that you would still have a joint venture, and as such, the activity would be properly reported as a partnership on Form 1065. Only when the only parties involved are husband and wife, only then might it be possible for each to report on Sch C IF they each meet the requirements of being a qualified joint venture by each of them meeting the material participation test. Otherwise, even if only H & W are the property owners and one or both fail to meet material participation, then they are merely a joint venture, not a QJV, and again should be reporting on Form 1065, not Sch C or even Sch E. I could be wrong, but I think you are stuck with reporting as a partnership.

https://youtu.be/zgagZxkGfMA

Nothing to it. I could do that. If I wasn't so old and weak and clumsy ;-)

ATX is not designed to be used via by VPN. It is a violation of the license agreement. Call tech support if you don't believe me, or, read your license agreement.

And, of course, since identity therft is non-existent, giving your SSN to even more places doesn't bother anyone, right? Am I the only one who still remembers when the SS law specified that the number was NOT to be used for identification?