Jump to content
ATX Community

jklcpa

Donors
  • Posts

    6,568
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    317

Everything posted by jklcpa

  1. I agree with Marilyn. Each category of component added to that residence has a limitation that shouldn't be exceeded for that item or category of items. Give it to one or the other. Obviously the exception to this would be if they are filing separately and costs are attributable to two homes.
  2. Tom, I did an advanced search on this forum for "database" specifically posted by Joe. See if any of these helps: https://www.atxcommunity.com/search/?&q=database&quick=1&author=Abby Normal&search_and_or=or&sortby=relevancy The link is safe to click. It will take you only to the search results within this site.
  3. If truly gifts, the rules for basis of gifted property should be used: sold at a gain, the basis in the hands of the donee would be donor's basis sold at a loss, donee's basis is the lesser of FMV at the date of gift or donor's basis I am willing to bet that this basis information does not exist. Was this activity a multitude of generic mass-produced toys accumulated since childhood that were sold off, or more valuable pieces considered collectibles that either held their values or possibly increased (true antique pieces, or something like the original handmade cloth Cabbage Patch dolls, etc)? I'd say that the schedule or form where to report these depends on the client's intention. Did the client view these toys as an investment, or is client talking about this as a business where more toys may be obtained as inventory with the intention of flipping for profit?
  4. I'd smile like this if my Robbie Robot could prepare the one I just finished and meet with the client too.
  5. Be sure to advise about the IP PIN requirements. These are some small things compared to the i.d. theft, but clients should know before getting an IP PIN: The IP PIN is permanent and can't ever be cancelled, and it will be required to e-file each year forever. A new IP PIN IS issued each year at the beginning of filing season. If taxpayers move during the year, they must file form 8822 for IRS to send the subsequent years' PINs to the correct address, or filing will be delayed until the new PIN is retrieved. This is easier now with clients being able to set up IRS account access, but who knows what security measures and hurdles will be in place in future.
  6. In case anyone here needs a laugh today besides me, it is so corny that I couldn't resist sharing.
  7. We have it. Click on the smiley face in the formatting bar of the reply box and a popup box with all of the emojis will appear. You can search for "clapping" from there. Why are we exactly? The CTA still applies for now.
  8. Stay tuned is correct! The plaintiffs in the case are the National Small Business Association (NSBA) and one of its members who sued for a permanent injuction. At this time the ruling applies to only the plaintiffs, and it is unclear if the injunction will extend to all ~ 65,000 individual members of the NSBA or to only the association itself. An appeal in the 11th circuit is likely with the U.S. government also seeking an interim stay of the ruling in both the trial and appellate courts. Reporting entities that were not plaintiffs in the Alabama case are still bound by the CTA at this time. There are a number of states that have passed or are planning to pass their own versions of the CTA. Today's ruling would not affect states' ability to pass these similar laws because it is based on U.S. Congress's authority under the U.S. Constitution. The court declined to address different grounds raised by the NSBA that could potentially be used to challenge legislation at the state level. The above are.main points from this law firm's analysis: https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/federal-district-court-in-alabama-holds-corporate-transparency-act-unconstitutional-and-enjoins-enforcement-against-plaintiffs
  9. Oops, no, I'm sorry. I put a strikethrough on "singles and" in my post above. The amount for singles is the same as MFJ. The limits are halved for MFS living apart all year. Single would still phase out at the $150K.
  10. Correct Yes, for MFJ the lower limit where phase out begins is $100K and the potential to claim any loss under this special provision is phased out at $150K. Basically the potential $25K loss allowance phases out at $1 for every $2 when MAGI starts to exceed $100K. Those amounts are halved for singles and MFS living apart all year.
  11. The $25,000 begins to phase out when MAGI exceeds $100K and is completely eliminated when MAGI reaches $150K. I don't think you are using MAGI and the loss properly in your calculation above to figure the allowed portion of the loss. ATX should have a worksheet that shows the calculation of MAGI and also the phase-out and/or allowed portion of the loss. Here is a link to the 8582 instructions. A description of the calculation for MAGI is found under the heading "Part II - Special Allowance for Rental Real Estate Activities With Active Participation" https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8582#en_US_2023_publink1000278151
  12. CCH was owned by Wolters Kluwer starting in 1996, so CCH may have been the one responsible for 2012 tax year programming overhaul mess, but the parent company of CCH at the time was WK.
  13. I think ATX has the option to leave it there and mark it out of service. You need to do that so that it does not calculate depreciation during the period of time it was not available as a rental.
  14. I'm puzzled as to how the PAL was allowed in 2023 when the rental was not disposed of but merely taken out of service as a rental. Did they have other passive activity income in 2023, or was the property left in as rental as available for rent and income was low enough to not phase out the carryover and current year losses? What program is allowing this? PAL will only be allowed if there are other passive activity income, income is below threshold for the special allowance for loss, or the activity is fully disposed of. Taking out of service and coverting to personal use is not a qualifying disposition to allow the loss. To answer your question, if converted to personal, you are correct that the assets will not carry forward. You would have to retain all of that and enter the figures appropriately on the forms when sold, and broken down by each type of asset sold (1245, 1250, land)
  15. I think you need to leave the entries in for the software to weigh whether standard or itemized is better. The software should still carryover the appropriate amount to next year. I'd make a note in the software or client file to pop up as a reminder on the 2024 return. If you are using ATX, here is a CCH KB on this handling: https://support.cch.com/kb/solution/000195265/will-charitable-contributions-carryover-when-using-the-standard-deduction-in-a-1040-return
  16. He will have penalties each year the excess remains in the IRA unless he corrects it by withdrawing with earnings now, is able to recharacterize to traditional, or until the year he distributes enough through a normal ROTH distribution to eliminate that penalty on the form 5329. Give the client his options because at over $400 in penalty each year, he may want to correct it. With my last one of these, the excess into his trad IRA was only $500 and client opted to leave it in because the penalty was only $30 and a distribution would be taken the following year and would eliminate the penalty anyway.
  17. Did those clients have Ameritrade accounts that paid dividends, or were they Schwab investors all year and not ever with Ameritrade?
  18. Are the EINs for the reporting payer the same on both 1099s? Is either marked corrected, amended, or have an issue date that indicates a more recent form? Yes, Schwab bought out Ameritrade during the year, but your post above still does not explain why the 1099-DIV in your original post reported qualified dividends in excess of the total ordinary dividends.
  19. Wow, obviously Schwab's reporting system isn't categorizing the dividends properly. They merged with, or bought out, Ameritrade during 2023, so I suspect that this error may be related to that and that a correct form will be issued.
  20. I think it is a limitation of IRS MeF system, not any of our tax software.
  21. jklcpa

    Efile Acks

    Not ATX, but I sent a return through about 1/2 hr ago and the ack was literally back within a minute. That is the amount of time to click on ack received that changes the status to "pending", click again to receive and process the ack that changes the status to "accepted" and mark the return "complete". Maybe it is something with ATX?
  22. jklcpa

    Tools

    All of the off topic posts not related to tools deduction have been hidden.
  23. I opened the storage area to where they all are and said someday I'll get to those. Closed the door and did something else. I've probably done that each time the topic has come up over the years. Today is the day! . . . maybe.
  24. I still have those too, back to the 1999 tax year when it was called Saber Pro!
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...