Leaderboard

I have often found that Google will do a better search of federal OR state official sites than the embedded search engines. For example, if at MassDOR I specify that I'm looking for tax year 2014 form whatever, they first page (or three) of "hits" will be years OTHER than 2014. Not so with Google. Mostly.

At an audit once, the IRS auditor complimented me on using the appropriate historical percentage for land vs. building for the date placed into service as a rental. Yes, your purchase percentage and sales percentage most likely will differ.

Hi, LaVergne, welcome to the Board! Absent more reliable information, I would use the property assessor's ratio at sale time to assign a percentage to land at sale time. It could, and maybe even likely will, be different than the ratio was at the time of purchase. We hope that people we pay to assess property values can be relied upon for the proper ratio of land to total, even if they miss what the parcel is worth to a willing buyer. I totally understand that using the county assessor's ratio may not be ideal, but let's be honest here, my clients are not going to come up with a more accurate allocation. Nor will they hire an expert to do it. They will either throw a dart at it, try to figure out how to manipulate the ratio to their advantage, or worse, try to get me to manipulate it. No thanks, I'll go with the paid county official's opinion at the time of the transaction.

A farmer friend of ours, has about 20-30 acres that has some woods, a creek and pasture. He will allow folks to drop off an elderly horse to just hang out till it passes away. His own little private rescue operation. When they pass away, he buries them on the property. He doesn't own a horse for himself, or as even a horse trailer. He just likes to have them around. Its a gentle send off for many of them, and more humane then "hoping" someone else will take care of them if you tie them up to your trailer... Rich

PA does have a sales tax exemption certificate application (Rev 72) for certain organizations to apply for exemption, but it doesn't seem to apply to municipal or gov't offices outside of PA but you should take a look at it. The actual exemption certificate itself is Rev-1220 that you can also take a look at too. I think the shipping address to an address outside of PA should cover it. There is that provision that says if the goods go to an intermediate agent within PA first though, then the goods are subject to tax. Do you know the exact reason given by the vendor for balking?

https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/061/chapter32/chap32toc.html ^ that came directly from the PA code found on this page: https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/061/chapter32/chap32toc.html ETA - the link I provided first was incorrect, now fixed. Sorry, I had too many tabs opened at once.

I don't know exactly how you've entered the assets initially or what you mean by "When detailed properly, the software reduces the depreciable building by the land...." I've always reported it as I described and my depreciation schedules have the land entered as a separate asset, so even with bulk sales entry, I indicate the proper code section that applies and it is reported separately.

Yes, they must be separated. In general: The land isn't depreciable property so it would go on the 4797 in part 1 as sec 1231 property. The building (sec 1250) and tangible personal property (1245) reporting is each separate and its reporting depends on whether it's short or long term AND also whether sold for a gain or a loss: Short term gain and losses of these type are reported in part 2, Long term and sold at a loss goes in part 1, Long term and sold at a gain goes in part 3 Sale of real or tangible that was deducted under the de minimis safe harbor - all goes in part 2

Iowa has published their 2019 withholding and bracket parameters. IA is in the beginning stages of not using federal tax as part of their tax system! https://tax.iowa.gov/news-release/release-idr-announces-2019-interest-rates-standard-deductions-income-tax-brackets https://tax.iowa.gov/sites/files/idr/documents/IA Withholding Formula and Instructions TY2019.pdf --- This article lays out the problems of using federal tax as part of state taxation, and estimated IA gained $138 million from the latest federal tax reform. https://taxfoundation.org/iowa-cut-rates-repeal-federal-deductibility/ "Repealing federal deductibility is a worthy goal in its own right, as this anachronistic policy ties Iowa’s tax code to federal policy in unexpected and often undesirable ways. When federal taxes go down, Iowa taxes go up. When the federal government provides preferential treatment of something—from the child tax credit to research incentives—Iowa penalizes it. High earners, because they have higher federal effective rates, see their Iowa tax liability reduced, while low-income filers, because they have little or no federal tax liability, get scant benefit from the deduction. This undermines the state’s progressive rate structure, but the result isn’t a flatter tax, just a more distorted one. "

Actually, I think Sara meant the 1999 Connecticut form W-4P. Which if I Google, I can get a copy here https://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/forms/1999forms/withholding/ct-w4p.pdf But the top answer is still the 2018 form here http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/forms/1-2018/wth/2018-ct-w4p.pdf And there is a HUGE difference.

This? Google brought it right up, top item direct to IRS site: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/fw4p--1999.pdf

Sorry, I was referring to the CT W-4P. You actually found a 1999 form? I can't even find current forms on their convoluted website! One thing noticeably missing from that website is any announcement that this change was being made. I am on their listserve too, and even that was silent. As usual, the calls from clients alerted us to this disaster.

Penalties are based on tax due. So once you get to the correct tax, you get the correct penalty. Your last sentence is what I meant. Tom Modesto, CA

It's a sad fact that starting with the last economic crash, people are once again abandoning horses because they can't afford their care. I owned horses for many years and still follow friends and pages on social media and read current stories of how people at shows will occassionally find a stranger's horse tied to their trailer. It's said that these folks will look for a nice trailer with people that appear to be well-off in hopes that their beloved animal will be taken and cared for because the rescues are full and rehoming or selling can be very difficult.

This reminded me of a funny occurrence: My late niece was a true, dedicated animal lover and as a kid brought home every stray cat, dog, and critter anywhere found. Her mom was horrified once when she showed up with a pig who promptly blew its foamy nostrils on mom's dress shoes. She later became a free-lance computer programmer, made quite a bit of money, got married, bought a 40-acre ranch in Texas, and promptly began filling it up with livestock. At one time she had approximately fifty animals there: horses, cows, donkeys, goats, pigs, chickens, cats, dogs, sheep, turkeys, ducks and Heaven knows what else. The inventory grew since the farmhouse across the road had burned down a few years previously - the owner, another pet-lover known to take in all strays, left and never came back. But people remembered the area and began leaving their unwanted animals on the road there near her house and she collected them all. Anyway the funny part was this - she said feed prices became very high one year and horses especially were increasingly being abandoned because many people couldn't afford to feed them anymore. She and her husband, returning from a show with horses in a trailer, stopped at the house and dropped off the horses, but didn't unhook the empty trailer and went on to a nearby national park where they went hiking. Returning later that afternoon, they were astounded to find two live horses now inside their horse trailer. They took them home and cared for them, so I guess that would qualify as a true "Horse Rescue" operation.

I had considered adding the feature. From the development angle, it's the kind of thing I'd have fun building. I'm a big fan of automating tedious/repetitive/boring tasks, or just things I would tend to forget. And from a user perspective, it's something I would take advantage of too. But I don't know how I would communicate the addition of the feature without making it sound like I'm asking for money. So the anxiety of that situation is the reason I haven't added anything like that. I think I will now, and blame @Catherine for its implementation

Netting is NOT allowed under sec 267 even if they are part of the same transaction. Gain is recognized and loss is disallowed.

To wit: This year CT, with no announcement, decided that every state resident who receives a pension will automatically have 6.99%withholding for state income tax unless they fill out a new W-4P. That rate normally applies to singles making $500+k and couples making $1m+. So now everyone who gets a $20k or $11k pension will give CT 6.99% and only get it back if they file a state return (or correctly fill out the form). We have had probably a few hundred calls from clients asking how to fill it out. I worry for those who don't make enough to file returns and have no one to call, so they throw the envelope from their pension place in the pile and soon see their small pensions diminished; they may not even know to file next year to get the confiscated funds refunded. The W-4P was also changed so that most folks can't understand it. It used to let you enter a code for the withholding table to use OR spaces to enter how much you want withheld, either a dollar amount or percentage. Now you can only enter a code (the form comes with four pages of instructions and a bunch of tables, like any nontax person can wade through that). I am convinced that the state made this move explicitly to extort funds from people who don't normally have to pay state income taxes or maybe just a little. Now the state is grabbing a lot and they will have to jump through hurdles to get it back. I am angry about all the time it took up to answer all those calls but even angrier about what they are doing to retirees, especially those who need every dollar they get just to live.