jklcpa

Just guessing, but have you tried duplicating one of those returns to see if the new file has less instances of the error occurring?

The very simplified version would be (basis - sec 179) * 50% = the special allowance. basis - sec 179 - special allowance = the remaining basis to use for calc'g regular deprec expense Explanation is in the instructions for 4562 on page 7, starting at the bottom of the middle column. Is your software not doing this for you?

Not on the PA W-2s, but on the ATX input form for the PA40 itself, does it still have the tabs across the bottom of the screen. That is the 1099R tab for a worksheet for PA40 line 1a that I was referring to. In ATX 2011, that screen's lefthand column said "select for PA purposes" that had a drop down selection that said "not taxable to PA". Is there a screen that still looks like this:

It's either a box at the bottom of the 1099R input screen for public pension distribution, or when I had n/t pension for PA residents I would go to the PA40 input screen and use the 1099R tab and that worksheet to indicate which distributions were not taxable for PA.

I would enter what the 1099B shows. Any part of a loss that is disallowed should have a code W and an amount. The added days are for the securities that caused the wash sale loss to be disallowed, and the holding period of those that were purchased are adjusted to reflect the additional days as if they were purchased when the original security being sold was purchased. They could be either short- or long-term, depending on how long the original security was held. Was the wash in the prior year, and now you are seeing only the sale of the remaining securities that were affected by this in the prior year?

I wouldn't use it either. Send the 1099 to the payee with "REFUSED" in the appropriate box. I would send it with a generic looking note that this information is being furnished to the IRS. When the payee causes more of a stink, your client can tell the payee not to worry, that the IRS knows how to find him.

The days are added so that the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. It sounds like those days noted are a memo item alerting the investor that the holding period will not start with when he or she actually purchased the shares that are causing the wash.

Yes, you should report it, and the answers of where and how depend on how the property was used from the date he inherited until it was sold. If he never lived in it and it was not a rental, then it's reported as an investment property in the long-term on Schedule D with the date acquired as "inherited". If it was his residence during that time, you treat it as such and go through the motions of determining whether or not this person is eligible for a partial or full exclusion of the gain under sec 121. If a rental, then you have the disposition of it as a depreciable asset.

I have the exact same problem with a client that was in this morning. Beach condo rented for a couple of years, last year rented was 2008 and sold in 2014. I do not remember whether I converted the assets to personal use, but the asset listing is not in my ATX input for years following that, although the program is showing a carryforward of depreciation due to the personal use limitations. On the depreciation schedule that ATX generated, the accumulated depreciation is the full amount before the limitation. What I did in those years where it was not being rented, I filled in the Sch E with -0- days rented, 365 of personal use, and -0- rents to maintain the carryforward. I don't know whether this was exactly the correct way to handle, but that is what I did. When it is sold, what happens to the depreciation carryforward and the fact that the depreciation schedule's accumulated depreciation is at the full amount, that was never really deducted on any return due to the limitation? Is the basis higher by the amount of depreciation not ever deducted, or is this a case of allowed or allowable where the TP is screwed? (ETA - pub 523 says for deprec after 5/6/97: "If you can show by adequate records or other evidence that the depreciation allowed was less than the amount allowable, then you may limit the amount of gain recognized to the depreciation allowed.")

Proceeds of $195K from stock sales. If she had a gain, that goes on line 5 of worksheet 1 as additional investment income. If a loss, enter -0-. Maybe that is what you are missing.

I have a gas station client. In years past he owned the gasoline that was in the tanks, and then this past year he negotiated a new contract that says he gets a commission on every gallon of gas he sells, but the supplier owns the gas in the tanks. Ask your client who owns the gas on hand. Does he lease all the equipment?

You are correct. No adjustment to the books, and his basis in those new shares starts out with what he paid to buy out #2. You might want to track the basis of the 2 lots of stock separately to save everyone a headache sometime in future.

I think you could choose either start-up or capitalize as part of the equipment. As long as a business isn't subject to the uniform capitalization rules, it would have the choice to capitalize interest or expense it. Alternately, start-up expenses can include expenses that would otherwise be deductible in a business that had already commenced operations. With all of that in mind, I think you can make a case for whichever one you choose to add the interest expense into and that will be best for the client.

I The only way I would do this is to fix/finish the input to file a complete and correct NY return, not file something "as is" that is known to be incomplete, and to file amended Federal and NJ to correct those filings.

If this is multiple choice, I'll go with "E - all of the above".

It was inherited, estate had it appraised, went through probate, value of $300,000 was shown in the estate's inventory of assets. They would have done the fix up and put it on the market right away if the stepmother wasn't in the house. In the 2+ years following dad's death, they paid out $25,447 these additional costs (does not include r.e. taxes): Payoff to stepmom to get her out $7,000 plus $1,500 to attorney to handle this Fix up expenses $10,294 Expenses related to sale (appraisal, inspection, closing costs, attorney) $4,847 Utilities, insurance, lawn service $1,806 Finally sold the house for $265,000

I agree with the other, and I would take it too.

On the form 8949, I would show $5000 as proceeds in col d, 5324 as basis in col e, code "w" in col f, the disallowed loss of $276 as a positive number in col g, and the resulting loss that wasn't disallowed of ($48) should end up as the result in col h. To me it look like the "not reported to IRS" means that this was a security where basis was not reported to IRS and should have box B checked. Is that correct?

Client and her 2 brothers inherited Dad's house 2 years ago and sold it in 2013. Stepmother was not party to any share in the house, and she was living there. According to my client, she and brothers hired a lawyer who negotiated a payoff to dad's wife to finally vacate the property; she would not leave voluntarily, even though the house was not left to her in the will. My first 2 questions are what to do with the legal fees to negotiate this settlement with the stepmother and the payoff itself? Schedule A for the legal fees for preservation of the asset or income-producing property, or lump in with expenses of sale because they had to get get stepmom out so they could sell it? Then, what about this payoff? The house was titled in their 3 personal names at the time all of this transpired, not in the estate at all, and they were the ones that had to pay this woman off to get her out of the house. Third question - expenses the 3 children have been paying on this property such as insurance, utilities, lawn service, etc. Carrying charges that add to basis? Fourth - real estate taxes on this property were not deducted in prior years on Sch A. Can these also be carrying charges added to basis? Last question - estate was cash poor and my client declined the executrix fee out of the estate, but did ask for $2000 for handling all of this related to the house and its sale, so she received $2000 more of the net proceeds and the 2 brothers amounts were adjusted down by $1000 each. TIA. I hope some of you are getting more sleep than me, because I'm not thinking about any of this too clearly!

The new posts do appear right away, but when I view a post and then go back to the main forum, even after refreshing the pages or going out of the site and coming back, the new posts still say -0- views and replies for a while afterward. Exiting and reopening browser doesn't help either.

That was kind of you. I don't know that I would have that much patience right now. "Perhaps we should reschedule" would have been about the nicest I might have managed.

Be careful with that. The election to aggregate can be useful if a taxpayer has enough hours for the participation test for one property but not for another, and by aggregating, those hours would apply to all of the properties being combined. The downside of having the election in place is that if the taxpayer has a property that has losses and disposes of it at a loss, those losses can only be used when substantially all of the properties are finally disposed of.

What Disability Benefits Qualify as Earned Income for EITC? IRS considers disability retirement benefits as earned income until you reach minimum retirement age. Minimum retirement age is the earliest age you could have received a pension or annuity if you did not have the disability. This is from the IRS site here: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Disability-and-Earned-Income-Tax-Credit Pub 596, page 7 says the same thing.

Looks like she updated the post. Shall we delete the topic entirely?

The sec 179 expense isn't showing up on the K-1s because it is only available to distribute to partners if the partnership shows actively conducted trade or business income as defined in IRC Section 702(a). Even though partners' K-1s might show income due to specially allocated income or expense items, if the partnership overall has a loss, Section 179 expense cannot be distributed to any of the partners in the current year. Any disallowed deduction can be carried over to future years and distributed up to the amount of partnership income in a given year.