Leaderboard

"The Federal Trade Commission says five large tax preparation companies could face civil penalties if they use or disclose data collected for tax prep for such unrelated purposes as advertising without getting the consumers' consent first. The five firms are H&R Block, Intuit, TaxAct, TaxSlayer and The Lampo Group LLC, d.b.a. Ramsey Solutions."

Ramsey Soultions?? I looked into being a Ramsey Pro and quickly declined. To join, they wanted $1,000.00 training fee plus $149.95 per month membership and 40% of your fee for individuals and 60% for business. I thought this was crazy. I had never heard of the Lampo Group, LLC and didn't know they offered any tax prep. I'm glad I refused.

@kathyc2 CA uses the phase "CA Adjusted Gross Income" and it throws a lot of people off. What they should say is "Federal AGI recalculated under CA laws as if you were a CA resident." But CA being CA, they do their own thing... Tom Longview, TX

Well, I think, as it is not really a business transaction, the donor/gifter of the trip would not have to file a 1099. Neither the donor nor the church are my clients although they did ask my advice/opinion of this possibility to encourage early returns of pledges of time, talent and treasure. I've shared the collected comments from folks here with the pastor and donor. The decision is theirs. I still feel that the church, while possibly benefiting for budget preparation purposes, an early idea of the financial trends of pledges, has no real reporting role here. Thanks to all for the discussion. This forum is always surprising with the variety of topics to ponder.

CA NR filing requirements look at your AGI from all sources within and without the state to determine the income threshold. Take a look at the 540NR booklet on FTB website for detailed information. Tom Longview, CA

Thanks all!

Tax Implications of a Farmland Lease: https://www.calt.iastate.edu/article/tax-implications-farmland-lease

Sounds to me like an award based on the actions of the shopper, not a gift.

Interesting case. In the original correspondence audit, the IRS only challenged Schedule C, where the taxpayer reported no income and a large loss. The audit determined a deficiency and penalty of about $7500. When the taxpayer went to court, the IRS responded by challenging the Schedule A charitable deductions as well. Since they were not in the original audit, the IRS had the burden of proof for those, but mostly prevailed, substantially increasing the deficiency (the court ruled they could not increase the penalty). A footnote in the findings (problems adding as well???):