Leaderboard

I'd prefer that this topic not be sidetracked into another gripe session until the poster's situation has been adequately discussed. It seems we already have several of those topics already going, so please stick to the subject of what the best approach and handling is, ethically, for the poster and the facts presented. Thanks.

You actually use the 2022 poverty levels for 2023 returns which is 73,240 for a family of 2. The 78,880 is 2023 levels which will be used for 2024 returns. The credit is based on FPL when they signed up which would have been late 2022.

It's your job to advise your client how to get her lowest tax liability. But how can you advise the wife on claiming her son while also advising the husband's rep on claiming the son on the husband's final return?! I hope you have their signed conflict of interest waivers on file.

I think we have beaten this topic o death. Let's put it to sleep.

At this point, for me, this type if stuff (being asked to setup or detail something clearly incorrect) is the bane of my customer interactions. Starts with the "nobody will know", to "none of your business you ^&(^(&, tell me how to do what I want". I usually reply with something like "based on what you have shared, I am uncomfortable with assisting as your description does not sound like an allowable method/option/choice". The most recent is someone who wanted help with something not allowed. I was told to keep my opinions to myself and to only answer the asked questions. Rather than just firing them, I am replying with links to the documentation, with zero comments. I got a message asking for more detail, and I replied with a snip from their "shut up" message.

I think Circular 230 says it is. Circular 230 says you cannot ignore the facts that you know when preparing a return. For example, if you know someone is married and they come to you and say they want to file HOH, you cannot ignore what you know to be a fact and file them as HOH. And I am not trying to be a jerk or a smarta$$. I am just pointing out that you are in a position that I would not want to be in. I am not sure how I would handle this. Tom Longview, TX

Yes, that's it! It's different than prior years. thank you!

Sara is correct. There is no doubt that ex is custodial parent and you are aware of that fact. But you need to confirm that with her. I suggest you meet with her first and explain that she has the option to release dependent by filing 8332. Off the top on my head, I don't see any ethical issues in this scenario.

I'm counting. Ha.

Formulas before redesign always had a cushion built in for 1 exemption. Some yahoo at Treasury decided to take away the cushion. I knew at the time it wasn't going to be going over well. So, before redesign the simplest situation of single no income other than wages was pretty much guaranteed a small refund by claiming Single and 1 exemption. Usually marginal rate times that years personal exemption amount. Since they took away the cushion with new form that person will break even. Then if they have a few hundred of investment income they owe.

I think the special rule is that the parents of the child can agree to put them on either return so long as they agree. If there is a disagreement, the tie breaker would go to the mom. I think Patti has an ethical issue on her hands about telling the mom about the situation. She cannot discuss the dad's return with the mom, but she is obligated to do so to properly inform her of the tax ramifications to the mom's return. Sticky situation. Tom Longview, TX

As always, I appreciate your input and knowledge. These clients represent the ONE AND ONLY time I did MFJ then kept both as separate clients after they divorced. It's been many years and there's never been a problem. He never mentioned her, and she never mentioned him. It's one of the most amicable divorces I've ever seen. His Mom called me last week and I will be doing his final return. The former wife comes in next week. Based on the history, I don't expect an issue but over the years I've learned that death can bring out the worst in people. Especially when money is involved and, in this case, that is true. I'm leaning towards leaving the son on Dad's return so the refund will go to the trust that was set up for the kids. Mom is now getting substantial SS benefits for both children and has a very good job so she doesn't need the money. However, if she questions me, I'll have to move the son to her return because Dad did not have him 183 days. Thank you all. 61 days left in tax season but who's counting?

As a long time FP, and failed twice, the payments are not taxable or reportable, unless you want to. This case sounds like one where the amount could actually lead to "profit", but still not reportable. I know of no case where the payments for full time in a home cover the actual costs. Not even the medically fragile (with a much higher payment). Coupled with the regulations, red tape, and danger (yes, birth people are not all kind and do make threats), it is no wonder few step up. We always used pseudo names for the kids, so we would never be heard in public using their BC name. For visitation, we never allowed at our home, and used a vehicle normally garaged. We avoided the birth person(s) and handed off through a worker. But, there is joy to be had as well, indescribable joy.

IRS Pub 4694 says they are not. Pubs are not authority as you well know. Tom Longview, TX

Single with no other notations (there is no "allowance" count on the current form) is wise for the first month. Then, review, compare against the desired WH per paycheck, and if different, use a new Single W4, with any desired adjustments to deductions or additional income. For those who cannot or will not let go of the "allowance" settings/comparisons from the past, the "implied" allowances are 0 for two jobs, 3 for married joint, and 2 for all other selections. THIS is why so many under withhold. Anyone who used to claim lesser allowances for their status selection is likely to under withhold.

I agree with Tom above, and also if this was a joint custody, then the son should be a qualifying child of the dad because the kids alternated weeks between the 2 homes and he died in August, then no one else (meaning the paternal grandfather in this case) could have had more custody than the dad unless it was possibly one week more by the mom.

Not to disagree, but in the year of death, doesn't the taxpayer get "deemed" to have lived the whole year and get the credits and deductions as if they lived the whole year? I am not in a place to look this up, but my first take was the same as Gail's. I don't think the IRS is going to go looking at a decedent tax return that claims a child if no other person claims that child. Tom Longview, TX

That's funny. I remember those dorms with the pay phone in the middle of the floor.

In college, each floor in the dorms had a pay phone in the middle of the hallway (for the two people on this board under the age of 40, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payphone). One day I'm heading to my room after class and the phone rings as I pass it. So I pick it up, lower my voice a little bit, and slowly say, "Greene County Morgue". To my horror, it was my mom calling for me. In spite of me having a very distinctive voice, she didn't recognize me. Thinking she had dialed wrong, she asks, "What number is this?" 18 year old me is panicking. I continue my pathetic Lurch imitation and start reading the number listed on the phone, changing the last number. We hang up. I go to my room. As I walk to my room, the phone rings. I ignore it. 20 seconds later, one of my dorm mates knocks on my door to tell me I have a phone call. I go pick up the phone: Me: Hello Mom: Dave, it's mom. You won't believe the wrong number I just dialed, the Green County Morgue. The number is one digit different than yours. The guy sounded just like a cartoon stereotype of an undertaker. Me (my knees still a bit wobbly): Wow, that's interesting.

That's true, but when I selected e-file through a vendor site, it replicated a 1096 for each type, and I'd assume that means that each was transmitted as separate batch with only like forms included. That appears to be the way ATX is handling it and had done so in past years, iirc. It's been since the GADof12, the Great ATX Debacle of 2012, since I used it though.