jklcpa

I hope it's only that an install code is needed, not that you have to purchase a separate package. I don't blame you for being mad; I would be too.

Well, there are those pesky affordability worksheets that must be filled out that are in the Form 8965 instructions. If the person doesn't meet the criteria for unaffordability or one of the other exemptions, then the SRP (the penalty) is assessed.

Thanks, Eva. In Jack's client's case, the issue wasn't so cut and dried to rely on the instructions in the 1040X, and since the post was from over 3 years ago, the decision on its handling has long since been made. However, Jack is one of our regular contributors here, and since you resurrected the topic, maybe he will enlighten us on whatever happened with this client and the EIC.

Pub 970 should give you a starting point for your further research. Page 30 covers student loan interest, interest on loans refinanced that are consolidated or collapsed (interest would be nondeductible), and page 37 has the section on loan forgiveness and when it is a taxable or nontaxable event. It doesn't specifically mention the PAYE program but does include a "caution" that interest paid on loans that are forgiven under other programs is nondeductible.

AKA "Pay As You Earn" :http://www.smarterschooling.com/colleges/obama-student-loan-forgiveness-program-paye/ or this link as some info on it too: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/default/files/income-driven-repayment.pdf

I'm sorry for your loss, Joan. Treat yourself gently and with time the memories of all the happier moments you shared with your cat over his lifetime will come to the surface and replace the ones from the past few days.

Form 4137

If anyone received a PM requesting tax prep from a new member whose name starts with rica..., vacationing in the Bahamas, please ignore it. I've banned the person as a spammer. That seems to have automatically removed the PM from my mailbox, so if any more were sent by this member, this action should remove them. At least 2 of us have received this, and this "person" made the unfortunate choice to PM me. BANNED! If anyone receives a similar suspicious PM from any other new members. Please report it. Similar to posts in the forum, all PMs contain "report" links within each message of PMs that we receive. Thanks.

Warning - an even dumber blonde joke. I'm wondering if this was a text from one of my clients.

This is the Ring Central pricing for fax-only service: http://www.ringcentral.com/plansandpricing/ringcentralfax.html The base price starts at $7.99 per month for one fax number and the first 500 pages.

The person isn't eligible for the PTC because she had the ability to purchase MEC offered through her employer that falls within the range of affordability. A person can't turn down that coverage and then have the gov't subsidize the premiums. Because of that, she was never eligible for the PTC. It doesn't matter that her income fell within the 100-400% of FPL.

Yes, you are correct on both points. If you want a reference, it's #22 on this IRS page.

The test for affordability of MEC through an employer's plan is 9.56% of household income. The premium to be used is the lowest premium that the employer offers and must include all discounts such as for non-smokers. It isn't unusual for taxpayer to give the Marketplace incorrect information when determining eligibility. For example, the taxpayer may have given only wage information, but for purposes of determining eligibility for the PTC, household income is used. For this test, household income is MAGI (AGI plus excluded foreign income, n/t soc sec and tier 1 RR benes, and t/e interest) for the taxpayer and anyone else that is claimed as a dependent. Is the taxpayer eligible to contribute to an IRA or HSA before 4/15/16 for the 2015 tax year that would lower the household income enough that the employer's premium would then exceed the 9.56% threshold and thereby qualify the person for the PTC? If the person is able to do so and can come up with those funds, that would be preferential than to pay back the APTC because she gets to keep the funds in her name than paying the government. See items 5 through 10 on this page at the IRS site.

Someone over 65 with a qualifying child can still get the EIC if he or she meets the other requirements.

I agree John. The only other thing I also did was to download Drake's ACA guides and saved to my desktop for easy access.

This made me laugh. It sounds too much like "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

There are a few of my favorites in your list too. Husband and I are making a point of seeing artists from our youth for this very reason as they come to our area. I think the last we saw was Three Dog Night, and Cory Wells passed on last November and Jimmy Greenspoon last March.

Moderator note: Original question has been answered. O/T, derailing posts have been hidden.

The changes were part of the Bipartisan Budget Act passed last year and the part affecting social security benefits goes into effect 5/1/16. Below is a link to a short summary from Morgan Stanley that summarizes closing the loopholes you are referring to, basically losing the "File and Suspend" and "Restricted Application" strategies. About asking for specific advice on how to increase your personal benefits, the question is rather broad and without knowing anything of your financial situation, no one here can give you the answers you seek. One of my webinars last month was a monthly tax update where the instructors spent quite a bit of the session talking about these changes in social security. Perhaps it would be beneficial for you to look into a course or webinar that would help you make the most appropriate choices for your own situation. http://www.morganstanley.com/articles/changes-social-security-2016

In the scenario you describe, the box 61 would be left blank on the 1040. This is explained very succinctly in the 1040 instructions for line 61 where it says the following (bold is mine for emphasis): I If you had qualifying health care coverage (called minimum essential coverage) for every month of 2015 for yourself, your spouse (if filing jointly), and anyone you can or do claim as a dependent, check the box on this line and leave the entry space blank. Otherwise, do not check the box on this line. If you, your spouse (if filing jointly), or someone you can or do claim as a dependent didn’t have coverage for each month of 2015 you must either claim a coverage exemption on Form 8965 or report a shared responsibility payment on line 61.

Why am I hearing Bones in my head with this one? Dammit ATX, I'm a tax preparer, not a ....

Same as Jack. No errors from accuwage in all the years I've filed w-2s except for my own because my name is the same as the firm name with some letters that follow.

Yes. Support isn't taken into consideration for determining whether a person is a qualifying child for the EIC. It's the residency, relationship, age, and joint tests that are used for the EIC. In your client's case, the child is under 24 yrs of age at the end of the tax year and is considered a full-time student for that year if he or she was a full-time student for at least 5 months of the tax year. The child also meets the residency test because that requires the child live in the home more than 1/2 the tax year.

DBerg, yes, that notation at the bottom is the standard wording that's appeared on the Form 1100 for many years now. I'll be mailing the payment in with a letter.

Ron, thank you for checking.