Leaderboard

Great question, Yardley. What's interesting is that the IRS came out with Rev Ruling 2013-17 mentioned here and another one for employers relating to payroll taxes, and discusses on that page about amending returns for tax years still open when the couple was legally married during those years. The interesting question is how the states are dealing with this in those states that piggyback the federal definitions and rules about filing status and income. I did a little poking around the internet and found this extensive summary done by a benefits attorney posted this past June. Be sure to scroll all the way to the bottom. Lots of information is contained on that page. Take it as a starting point and definitely check with your specific states' departments of revenue.

I'd only add that if the tenants are using a portion of the land for their livestock, I'd include that portion with the house on the rental expenses.

Yes, that's what I would do, Deb. I use the county property tax appraisal to allocate basis, property tax, and interest. For example, if 2/3 of the total appraisal is assigned to land, I'd allocate 2/3 of those three to land. I frequently have farmers wanting to write off all their property tax on Sch F. I think it's called the Whole Ball of Wax Method - House and All. I look up the county property tax data and allocate the appropriate fraction to farm use. I think it's as good a way as any most of the time.

The portion of sale proceeds relating to intangibles is a class VI asset for reporting on the Form 8594. It would be a sec 1231 gain or loss. You might find Pub 544 helpful, scroll down or search for "Dispositions of Intangible Property"If you want the cite: Code sec 197(f)(1): (f) Special rules (1) Treatment of certain dispositions, etc. (A) In general If there is a disposition of any amortizable section 197 intangible acquired in a transaction or series of related transactions (or any such intangible becomes worthless) and one or more other amortizable section 197 intangibles acquired in such transaction or series of related transactions are retained— (i) no loss shall be recognized by reason of such disposition (or such worthlessness), and (ii) appropriate adjustments to the adjusted bases of such retained intangibles shall be made for any loss not recognized under clause (i).

Yes, the odds of tax saving strategies being successful are directly proportional to the freeloadingness of the friend. That's how it works. This is science.

"Have the client take the exact specs to the dealer, and get a written statement of what the dealer would pay him for it, at the time he won it. Use that to add an 'adjustment to reflect FMV' to the line 21 entries, down on the blue lines to reduce the 1099 amount. In other words, show the full 1099 amount, then 'adjust' it down. The law only requires him to report the FMV of any prize." This is from KCJ post as a reply my similar post on 02/17/09. It worked for my freeloading friend, who rewarded me with a meal at a marginally upscale restaurant over a drive thru. .

I would not assume that the amount shown on the 1099 is fmv. Per RIA CHECKPOINT: Even though fair market value of an item is usually considered the price that a willing seller and a willing buyer would agree to, the Tax Court has taken special factors into account in determining the fair marketvalue of awards and prizes. Where it is obvious that a prize winner may not be able to resell the prize for as much as the contest sponsor paid for it, resale value at the time of receipt, not cost, determines the amount of income.43 Value to the winner44 or cost to the payor45 may also be used as factors. 43McCoy, Lawrence W, (1962) 38 TC 84138 TC 841, acq 1963-2 CB 5.44Turner, Reginald, (1954) TC Memo 1954-38TC Memo 1954-38, PH TCM ¶54142, 13 CCH TCM 462.45Wade, Nathan, (1988) TC Memo 1988-118TC Memo 1988-118, PH TCM ¶88118, 55 CCH TCM 413.

What you're seeing here is a tension between the marina (which wants a big tax write-off) and the taxpayer (who wants a smaller tax bill). Just because the marina put $20k on the 1099 doesn't mean that number is right. We see it all the time with foreclosures--bank puts some low number in the FMV box and shows a big amount of cancelled debt. We look it up and find the bank sold the property two weeks later for much more, so we adjust the FMV and are prepared to argue it. IRS even says that's legit. In your case you will put $20k on Line 21 and on the same line add -$4k "adjustment to true FMV. I had a client who won a car and the 1099 showed list price. She wanted a different car and the dealer gave her a lower trade-in value, even though the first car never left the lot (and therefore never depreciated). I used the lower value as explained above and never heard from IRS. If marinas are like car dealers, they are using list price even though no one ever pays it. IRS employees buy cars too and should easily understand that gimmick.

And it was sold to the same marina that donated the thing to boot. Or to boat. I think the guy won $16,000 myself.

In essence, schirallicpa simply asked if the taxpayer could deduct $4,000 since, if he doesn't, he will pay tax on $20,000 when he only got $16,000. He didn't say the client was hounding him to take a loss, or even if the client was the one wondering about it. I don't really see a reason to call the boat winner greedy here. It's a good question. Can he pay tax on $16,000 since that's what he got? Well, sounds kind of reasonable to me, especially if this all happened within one tax year. I understand the rationale for the question and don't see any reason to assume anybody is greedy because they want to reduce their tax liability if they can legally do so.

No deductible loss. It is a personal asset. But now as I sit here and think about it, how did he sell it at a loss? What was his investment in the boat? I would believe that he may have sold the boat for less than what the organization raffling (if that was the case) valued the boat. But unless he spent enough on tickets to exceed what he received for the boat, he did not even have an economic loss.

I had a client who sent both his federal and state balance dues to the state (despite the fact that I had the payment instructions and payment vouchers clipped to separate envelopes. He "lost" them and hand wrote his own.) The state cashed both checks and sent him a refund, and the IRS of course sent him a bill. It was all my fault until he got his bank statement and realized what he did. I'm with Catherine. Why did the bank pay a check to the wrong payee? That's what happens when checks are machine read--only record the numbers I guess. Now if I tried to deposit a check made out to Catherine I'd probably be arrested.

Ah, but where is the authority for the BANKS to give money to an entity NOT named on the check? If this is so, they have written themselves authority to steal at will. It needs to be repealed/overturned/stopped. If someone sends a check to the wrong agency, they'll just be stuck with late payment penalties and interest.

Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered.