Leaderboard

Yea ,the Omnibus Spending Bill due to be passed tomorrow or Tuesday includes the authorization to deduct the qualifying allowable expenses funded by PPP Loans which have been forgiven. It will also authorize a second round of PPP Loans with more restrictive qualifying parameters.

Most understood the forgiveness would eventually not exclude the expenses from countable for tax return, but it was wise to plan for this not to happen. The last I saw was the new PPP would require showing a certain percentage loss of sales compared to a specific time. I like it, as by now, all can see the actual effect and such qualifications make perfect sense. I could be in the small minority, but I have nothing against the first round being based only on stating a possible or likely effect, since the program was implemented before anyone could have hard numbers to go on (for an entire quarter). Yes, money was lost to fraud, and since all could likely state they might be impacted, some received funding who could have made it without. The timeline was simply too short to catch even some of the obvious fraud upfront, and it appears as if there is an effort being made to catch at least some after the fact. The next wait and see is if FFCRA will be extended or not.

Good point, Medlin. When we had an interim priest and I was treasurer, I attended the seminars run by our diocese presented by William F. Geisler (from CA, I think): the seminar for the treasurers AND the seminar for the clergy, in case I could learn plus pick-up the handouts for the priest as we conducted a search. That was years ago, though. Our current priests' husband is in the financial field, so we talk finances together; I send him links re legislative changes, IRS clarifications, etc. They do have their own CPA who specializes in clergy taxes, so we are not going to do this wrong! When our diocese again runs financial seminars, I will strongly suggest our priest and her husband attend.

The clergy person might be directed to the denominational training for clergy finances. This should have been something no clergy person should miss. There could be other things being missed in their personal finances. (Not that any of the personal finances are the employers issue...)

I'm especially proud of being able to toss it to the new-ish treasurer. And to an assistant treasurer (who was the prior treasurer for a long time) whose husband was our senior warden one winter when Paychex prepared an incorrect W-2 for a former priest, so she and her husband (not currently on the vestry) sorted out something similar in the past and remember how time-consuming it was. That discovery was made by the priest's tax preparer in February or later, and he was a bulldog until it was redone correctly. I think we paid Paychex fees to get that one right so late. So, I'm happy that I spotted this potential problem via a spreadsheet I don't normally receive while it's still 2020. And that it's not my responsibility to fix it !! Thank you all for jumping (pun intended) in. Merry Christmas and all the other winter holidays!

Good catch!

And we get an extra 9% from state for a big night out on the town.

Those of us who have been in this business for a while should very well know the IRS will never call you to check on anything or verify anything. As soon as I would get this call, all the red flags would immediately soar.

You enter up to $300 for MFJ, single, HH, and qual widower, or up to $150 for MFS. So if a joint couple gave only $125 in contributions, then that's all they get, not the full $300. If they give $450, they'd enter only $300 on line 10b. From the 1040 draft instructions: