jklcpa

The cite I have is from the U.S code, specifically 26 U.S. code sec 5000A (c )(4)(A), (B ) and (C ) - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A. Sec 5000A is the part of the code that is the "Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage". (4) Terms relating to income and families For purposes of this section— (A) Family size The family size involved with respect to any taxpayer shall be equal to the number of individuals for whom the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151 (relating to allowance of deduction for personal exemptions) for the taxable year. (B ) Household income The term “household income” means, with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, an amount equal to the sum of— (i) the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer, plus (ii) the aggregate modified adjusted gross incomes of all other individuals who— (I) were taken into account in determining the taxpayer’s family size under paragraph (1), and (II) were required to file a return of tax imposed by section 1 for the taxable year. (C ) Modified adjusted gross income The term “modified adjusted gross income” means adjusted gross income increased by— (i) any amount excluded from gross income under section 911, and (ii) any amount of interest received or accrued by the taxpayer during the taxable year which is exempt from tax. Forgive me if I am wrong, but the way I read this is that the MAGI of those dependents has the possibility of being included, but the hurdle that stops its inclusion is 5000A(4)(B )(ii)(II) just below the big red "AND". Please, if someone has some official cite that contradicts this, please share it.

Pacun is correct. Only MAGI of dependents required to file is included in household income. From form 8962 instructions for line 2b - Enter the modified AGI for all of your dependents on line 2b. Use the worksheet next to figure the combined modified AGI for the dependents claimed as exemptions on your return. Only include the modified AGI of those dependents who are required to file a return. Do not include the modified AGI of dependents who are filing a tax return only to claim a refund of tax withheld or estimated tax.

I'm not going to worry about this or whether or not it's true. I may make a general statement such as "your return includes credits that may delay your refund if the IRS decides to scrutinize these credits more closely or requests documentation before finishing the processing of your return."

Rich, I don't think that not filing the 3115 is the best course of action if you scrub the depreciation schedule, even if they have zero basis due to sec 179. I think the IRS expects some of those 3115s to be filed with a zero 481(a) adjustment. In the blog that Frazzled linked to in her first post, a moderator named "Coddington" posted (post #4 in that blog) to refute that statement from Jennings. Take it or leave it, but here's is what he posted: Sorry, but Bob Jennings is wrong. Scott MacKay (then of Treasury) actually went out of his way at the 2014 ABA Tax Section Mid-year meeting to address some of the misinformation Jennings has been spreading. It's rare to hear a governmental panelist so upset by what's going on in the marketplace. The only time a Form 3115 would not be necessary is if the taxpayer has never had any repairs or improvements, has no materials or supplies impacted by the new regs, and so on. (This always happens with new taxpayers, such as via a valid 351 drop-down.) In applying section 446, every circuit that has ruled on the issue agrees that taxpayers must file method changes even when going from an impermissible method. (The 10th Circuit had a different approach applying the predecessor statute from the '39 Code, but the revised language of section 446 trumps that approach.) Changing its long-standing regulations for ambiguous statutes, even if contrary to prior judicial precedents, is within the power of Treasury in the post-Mayo world. So any year that a taxpayer has material, supply, repair, improvement, or other costs that are treated differently under their current method and under the new regs, the taxpayer would need to file a Form 8725-R. Now, from a practical standpoint, many small taxpayers will be able to use the new de minimis safe harbor and the new small taxpayer safe harbor and avoid most issues going forward. From this perspective, the filing of Forms 3115 with zero-dollar section 481(a) adjustments, prospective application of the regulations as of 1/1/14, and use of the safe harbors is generally the safest course. Treasury and Chief Counsel have been going around saying that review of section 481(a) adjustments is a Field issue and no one is aware of a situation where the lack of a negative adjustment unwinds an otherwise valid method change. The problem for many small clients, however, is that if there is no method change, they reported repair expenses on their pre-'14 returns, and they have no improvements on their fixed asset records, the Service might dig deeper and come up with a positive section 481(a) adjustment. So you'd need to do a risk analysis for your clients to see whether they are exposed or have an opportunity under the regs. Of course, for many small clients, like those that use most property management companies, you won't even have enough info to apply the de minimis and small taxpayer safe harbors, so you'll have to look at the regs (and method changes) for other options. -Brian Tax accounting methods and credits consultant for hire. http://www.coddingtontax.com

In addition to the rev procs and other links above, I'll add this 44-page summary from Wolters Kluwer CCH issued this past May on the subject that is available on the internet. I saved it to my desktop earlier this year and plan to go through it again this coming weekend. It is written in a way that is easier to understand than some of the other writings I've seen, and it has some very good charts. There's one on the last few pages that summarizes the form 3115 change numbers to use, the general topic those numbers relate to, their specific purpose, and the related tax regs for easy reference.

David left ATX for another vendor so he will no longer have the ability to efile through the ATX server using those prior year programs.

I have the same concerns about the scrubbing and especially concerned about the repair bills. How far back are some of you really planning to check these? I am much more worried about looking at those repair bills for my clients than I am about the ACA. I don't know if you are correct about not needing the 3115 if the asset has been fully depreciated via sec 179 or the years of 100% bonus depreciation though. I was just looking over the instructions for the form 3115 again last night and one of the questions asked on that form is if any of the assets being scrubbed were previously expensed under any provisions such as these, and to attach a detailed schedule.

Letter 4800C = Questionable Credit 30 Day Contact Letter, found on this page under 3.8.45.28.14 "Special Handling to Hold Payments" http://www.irs.gov/irm/part3/irm_03-008-045r-cont04.html

^ LIKE. I've reached my quota for the day for clicking the like button Yes, and instead of finding some logical way to identify or deter those fraudulent EIC returns in the first place, they'd rather go after the preparers by imposing higher penalties because that is the easier, more lucrative path.

Too bad the IRS won't slow down the refunds on returns with EIC, at least until W-2 income is verified.

This was posted on the facebook page of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, which stated its source was "an IRS contact". My quick search didn't turn up any other source or information about this, but that doesn't mean this might not be true. I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. As always, ask for more information and documentation than simply relying on the amount that is reported on the form 1098T. Why doesn't the IRS require that the 1098T include a box for the amounts paid, instead of only reporting the amount billed? I suppose that would be too logical.

David, you won't have to submit fingerprints because you are a CPA. You shouldn't have a problem at all. There are a few simple questions to answer about being UTD on tax payments, compliant with professional licensing and such like that.

That's a very nice request, David. I'm glad you sent it, and would sincerely like to hear about the response you receive. Just to clarify for anyone else reading this and truly not trying to plug a product (because I do think the ATX payroll compliance module is superior), but in fairness, Drake's CWU module is provided to purchasers as part of their tax package and allows for creating and e-filing of the 941, 940, w-2s, and 1099s "on the fly" without having to use it for write up. What it doesn't do, for me at least, it doesn't produce an acceptable file for filing w-2s electronically for my state. I'm not surprised at ATX banning people that complain, no matter how small the complaint. They've done in past years over lesser "offenses" and was the big reason for their shutting down the site in 2007 as KC mentioned.

Oh dear, I didn't notice that they both were the same. They are fixed now!

Don't tease me with pictures! Arrrrrrgh!

Max, I don't know! The conflicting information is what is making this all so much more difficult. I can't answer about ATX, maybe someone else can chime in on that. Is it showing that the 8962 and 8965 are fully functional, ready for filing, and not still in draft form? My software has input screens that replicate the worksheets found in the form's instructions and will auto determine and fill in if code A is appropriate.

Great question, by the way!

Dammit, I have no money for chocolate yet! Someone send me some, and hurry, I'm getting desperate!

My apologies to David for making any suggestion about his choice of software, but not for deleting the pdf. Once he utilized the information to create his own page of questions, I did leave that text up in both this thread and the one in the ACA forum also. FWIW, Drake DOES have a problem with the direct scan of its materials. I spoke with a company representative this morning and he was shocked to see that its one support page, current organizer, and practice return are accessible by the public. He confirmed what I already know, that Drake's support section is NOT for public consumption and is meant to be for only purchasers of Drake software, and is accessible with a user name and password via their support link on their site. He said Drake copyrighted materials should NOT be included in seminars or posted online without their permission, and was distressed to learn that the specific material I was talking about is the ACA portion of the organizer because, obviously, this is the brand new portion of their current product. All of this information is being sent up to the powers that be about the support site and the materials being included in a seminar package, and he said that Drake always goes after those that use their materials without permission. Drake has their own complete training center, their own presenters, and host seminars all over the country and online for their users. They have no need for their materials to be spread or used by outsiders for marketing or to impress anyone, especially when they have no control over how that person will present their materials. Yeah, I need a lot of chocolate...and maybe a chaser of something else too!

Lucky you! None of my clients will be in until about mid-Feb or later.

KC, I left you and Eric a note in the moderator's section.

Tom, try Rev Proc 2014-41. The answer as to how to calculate the exact SEHI amount is in section 5. I don't know if the answer to your question, what happens to the rest of it, is in this rev proc; I didn't have time to read all of it. If others are not yet aware, one of the problems in determining the SEHI is that it is a circular formula when the PTC is involved with each amount affecting the other, and this rev proc has the formula to calculate the SEHI. I got to that through the IRS site, so if you or anyone want to use those to save time finding this rev proc, here they are: Rev Proc 2014-41 and IRS page that the above link came from. Hope this helps.

Thanks, Terry. Here are more additional safe links: Tax Tools on healthcare.gov has look up info for bronze and silver, allows the user to input the zip code and choose the geo area, and allows user to look up for multiple people, not just a single person. Is supposed to be available by mid-Jan Geographic rating areas by state provided by CMO.gov (the official govenment site - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) and Bronze and silver plan lookup by age and state as provided by Health Ins Marketplace & U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services. Make sure that age is selected correctly USING THE AGE AT THE TIME THE POLICY STARTED. This tool shows one line for both the bronze and silver costs without text and might be easier to use when we all get busier.

Drake organizer is NOT available online. If you look at the bottom left of that page you scanned and originally posted, do you not see the words "Copyright 2014"? That is why I removed your attachment here...twice, not because I don't want to share useful materials with others here. I'd have shared it myself if it was legal to do so and wouldn't be a violation of the TOS I've agreed to. I'll agree with you that Drake customer service is wonderful. Maybe you should ask for their permission before sharing copyright-protected materials. I'll send Drake an email to let them know. Thanks.

Yes, a paid seminar that you attended, David. I wonder if Drake Tax Software gave Mr. Bird permission to include their organizer pages in his handout materials, or if DTS is aware of this at all?