jklcpa

Mircpa, does this S corp actually have accumulated E&P? That would only come about if the company was formerly a C corp or may have "inherited" the accum E&P in an earlier tax-free reorganization with another C corp that did have the accum E & P. If your S corp doesn't have accumulated E & P on its books, you will not have the technical termination of the S status. It also wouldn't be subject to the passive investment income tax either. I have several more links that may help you - "Taking the 'Sting' Out of S Corporations' Earnings and Profits" from the Journal of Accountancy, Jan 2011 - the article talks about the tax traps of excess passive income in the S corp and possible solutions including how to structure distributions to pay out the accum E & P, or how to make an election to pay out accum E & P before AAA http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2011/Jan/20103334.htm "Determining the Taxability of S Corporation Distributions: Part II" from The Tax Advisor, Feb 1, 2014 - more in depth about the taxation of distributions from S corps with accum E & P, more examples. This article also includes a link back to the Part I of the article from the month before. http://www.aicpa.org/publications/taxadviser/2014/february/pages/nitti_feb2014.aspx "S Corporations and Rental Income" from the NY State Society of CPAs CPA Journal Online, from 2006, includes a discussion of PLR 200339042 where the IRS ruled that the rental income received into an S corp from commercial real estate wasn't passive because of significant management services provided by the S corp. The article includes a list of those services that were provided. http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/1006/essentials/p44.htm

Mircpa, not only will you have a problem moving the real estate out of the corporation without triggering gain as I'd already mentioned, you also will trigger gain recognition because of the related party rules that will negate any benefit derived from the 1031 exchange if you move the property from the S corp to another related entity within 2 years of the exchange date if the same owner of the current S corp also owns more than 50% of the new entity. That would include other S corps, C corps, partnerships, LLCs, etc.

Mircpa, take a look at this Feb 2014 article from Bloomberg BNA about the IRS waiving the termination to see if this might help you: http://www.bna.com/irs-waives-termination-n17179882518/

Reference is §1362(d)(3)(A)(i). Here's a link to that section: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1362

I agree with Sara. I've taken courses offered and have done reading over the last 2 years, but there's no way I'd go into this coming tax season without taking at least another CPE course. I plan to do more than that.

Hmm, this termination of the S corp and transfer to the LLC will trigger gain recognition from the distribution of the real estate at FMV.

No, she had only 236 votes of the 250 required for further consideration. Joan, I wish you'd asked us sooner. I hit my FB friends up a couple of times pushing for votes, and those that saw it did vote, but on a Friday night in the few hours that remained there were many more that weren't on to even see the request. I know more would have voted at my asking if I'd been able to share your need earlier.

Is that what you are doing, playing hard to get? Seems to me that CCH's discount strategies leave a bad taste for the long-time loyal users, and it always looks like a last ditch desperation move by the company when they start offering this variety of discount and prize drawings.

There was never a time when a WIFE was claimed by the husband for 1/2 of the year and she claimed herself for the second 1/2. KC and Sara didn't mention children or custody in their posts.

I cast a vote for you! I also posted on my FB page asking my friends to help out too.

No fun for us!

Nah, y'all are going to milk this for all it's worth.

I agree with this. If a user is absolutely sure that they are sticking with a particular program, then go ahead and take advantage of the discount. On the other hand, if a user wants to see if major problems of the prior year have been resolved to their satisfaction, that promises made by the vendor have been kept, AND that user doesn't need the program before February, the discount may not be worth the hassle of renewing early only to find out that the program is no longer suited to their particular practice. In that case, it may be better to wait and let others test out the early releases and fixes. That small a discount only represents one or two returns for many or most of us.

I agree with jmdaviscpa. The gain in the S corp does increase basis, so as long as basis at the EOY is higher than the suspended losses, the individuals should be able to deduct those in the year the gain passes through.

From the instructions for 1040X: When To File File Form 1040X only after you have filed your original return. Generally, for a credit or refund, you must file Form 1040X within 3 years (including extensions) after the date you filed your original return or within 2 years after the date you paid the tax, whichever is later. If you filed your original return early (for example, March 1 for a calendar year return), your return is considered filed on the due date (generally April 15). However, if you had an extension to file (for example, until October 15) but you filed earlier and we received it July 1, your return is considered filed on July 1. This forum is for tax professional only to help each other with technical aspects of using the ATX tax program and in our tax preparation. We do not give out tax advice to the general public here.

You didn't give enough info yet for anyone here to compute his basis. Clearly there were losses or distributions in prior years that created that negative balance in retained earnings, but we don't know if aggregate prior year losses were enough that stock basis has been reduced to -0- by the start of the year you are working on, and if there was a reduction in debt basis prior to the BOY. Was debt basis at BOY a reduced amount below 100% of its value? Basically, there is stock basis and there is debt basis. Once stock basis is zeroed out, the shareholder can continue to deduct losses on his personal return up to the amount of debt basis. If both have been fully used, then his basis is truly -0-. If the debt basis had been reduced below its face value, any repayments of the loan that are paid to the shareholder might create taxable income. The character of that income depends on the type of loan. The shareholder's basis doesn't have to be -0- to create this income, only that debt basis had been previously used (reduced) when he deducted losses, and if repayment of the loan is made before the debt basis is restored to 100% of face value, then he will have income.

You have to work through the basis worksheets. It is possible that your colleague is correct. Also, the repayment of the loan can be either capital gain income or ordinary income, depending on the structuring of the loan. If the loan is evidenced by a note, it's possible that the repayment will be capital gain income. If the loan is "open" with no documentation in place, the taxable income triggered by the repayment would be ordinary income. http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2004/nov/avoidthetaxtrapwhenrepayingshareholderloans.htm

Shareholder is taxed on his proportional share of the company's ordinary income and other flow through items. If the $5K was salary, then the shareholder will report the $5K as W-2 income on line 7 of the form 1040 plus the $13K of ordinary income on Sch E. If that is the case, the $5K in salary was a deduction on the 1120S to arrive at the remaining $13K of ordinary income. If the $5K was a shareholder distribution, then he/she will report only the $13K. Like a partnership, the shareholder reports the income from that entity whether or not he/she received any money or property as distributions at all.

Another page from IRS site: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Husband-and-Wife-Business

If they are truly running one business, they should be filing a partnership return, or they might be able to be a qualified joint venture and report on separate Sch Cs and Sch SEs: http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources/Tools-&-FAQs/FAQs-for-Individuals/Frequently-Asked-Tax-Questions-&-Answers/Small-Business,-Self-Employed,-Other-Business/Entities/Entities

Articles with an overview are from the AICPA and Journal of Accountancy: http://www.cpa2biz.com/Content/media/PRODUCER_CONTENT/Newsletters/Articles_2012/CPA/Nov/PenaltyAbatement.jsp http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2013/Jul/20137885.htm

Does the Sch C have a profit to allow the home office deduction?

Lion is correct. Both the buyer and seller file form 8594 that reports the breakdown of the sale/purchase by class. The instructions for the form describe the classes. Depreciable assets are class V; inventory, stock, products are class IV; many intangibles fall into class VI; goodwill and going concern are class VII.

I would check into this to see if NY will continue to use the definitions going forward that they used for the 2013 year. Jack from Ohio, this might help you too, since NY has different definitions for "tax preparer" and "commercial tax preparer". CPAs, EAs, attorneys licensed to pratice law, employees under direct supervision in firms of those CPAs, EAs, attorneys aren't considered tax preparers under the 2013 definition. This is from the NY website: http://www.tax.ny.gov/tp/reg/tpregmore.htm It seems that the EAs need to check to see if the definition has changed.

Yes, there are statements like that in many of the states' instructions and still on the forms for those that are paper filing, and the forms are also unchanged. The proper instructions for tax preparers and other e-filers should be included in the e-filing guidelines put out by each state, but in many cases those instructions are lacking this sort of detail.