Leaderboard

I must say, that applies to me also. Glad you got it to file!

My personal, strong, preference is always to take the refund, even if the client then takes the funds and sends them right back in an estimated payment. I like to keep the years separate. That way, any unforeseen circumstance (the IRS sends a cp2000 letter about a form you never got, for instance) does not instantaneously mess up TWO years' worth of returns. The first by the mis-match or other problem, the second by the funds you had counted on carrying forward NOT so doing - so now the rest of the year's estimated payments are mucked up. My business partner is learning this the hard way, with an elderly client who failed to give us some papers for 2017. The IRS took the carry-forward amount to apply to the prior year, and now this elderly lady is all confused about what *he* did wrong, that the rest of her estimated payments had to go up so much.

I have had this same situation and never ran into a problem with the e-file. Just put the info in the way it should be.

If we had a union, the first group I would exert union influence would be the IRS. For telling us we aren't expected to audit, then requiring Form 8867.

Try this reply next time (ps, I saw something like this on a linkedin post). If I do a job in 3 hours, it is because I have spent 20 years learning how to do that job in 3 hours. You owe me for the years, not the hours. Tom Modesto, CA

It hasn't been filed yet, but the software indicates it is ready to efile. There is one more question. She (HOH) itemizes. Does he (MFS) have to itemize ,too?

This was a personal error (go figure). A malware software product identified an ATX file as a possible PUP and I deleted it before checking the source identifier. My bad .

JohnH, I like your last suggestion. It takes the uncertainty out of the other ways of handling this, which could lead to delays and complications. Even if the Jan 15 payment is late the penalty, since it is the last qtr, is only going to be 1.2% ($72).

That did it. Clicked in HOH qualifier and it took the dependent off of the 1040, but kept CCC. Thanks for your suggestion. The folks at Drake are good, but don't know everything.

they can both e-file the returns.

The AICPA does some work on behalf of tax preparers. It's legal department provides support for lobbying activities and it did file a lawsuit against the IRS back in 2014 regarding the IRS' regulating of preparers through its "voluntary" program. It's "Legal" page is here: https://www.aicpa.org/advocacy/legal.html Similarly, the NAEA has a PAC that works on behalf of EAs in a variety of ways. See here: https://www.naea.org/advocacy My state society also asks for donations to a PAC fund, so there is some involvement at the state/local level from that group as well.

The election to aggregate activities for Sec. 199A and the choice to group rental activities to meet the 250 hour safe harbor are two different things. The choice to group rentals under the safe harbor is one you can make and not have to disclose in the annual statement required by Notice 2019-07. There is a consistency requirement, though, and taxpayer may not vary the chosen treatment year to year unless there has been a significant change in facts and circumstances. The aggregation election under the regs under Sec. 199A is for the purpose of accumulating the QBI, W-2 wages, and unadjusted basis for application to the aggregated group of activities. This also has a consistency requirement. There is an annual disclosure of the activities that are being aggregated. That reporting must be consistently reported in all subsequent years. In a subsequent year, if there is a significant change in facts and circumstances such that if the prior aggregation of trades or businesses no longer qualifies for aggregation under the rules, the activities cease being aggregated, and the taxpayer must reapply the rules to determine a new permissible aggregation, if any.