jklcpa

I think you've succeeded too.

Tom, you have a great reason to brag as Patrick sounds like a very accomplished young man. I'm sure he'll have no trouble getting in to any school he chooses.

I just read that the healthcare.gov site will go down over the weekend at 1am each night for a few hours to fix glitches in the site. One thing that bugged me is that a person has to create a user name to even be able to look at the available choices.

It's nothing new. Point at your name in the upper right and choose either "My Settings" or "Manage Ignore Prefs" and from either of those, user names can be entered for those that you choose to block. For those users that are blocked, their posts are minimized in the thread and there is a choice within the thread to view it anyway. You will still see a blocked user's post if someone else quotes them though. The block function has separate blocking of posts, signature lines, and even personal messages.

Jack, because people aren't responding doesn't mean that you are being ignored or that your work, and that of the other beta testers, is being disregarded or isn't appreciated. This is a slow time on the forum with many members absent during the summer and fall, but even with those limited members that are here regularly, this thread has been viewed over 1300 times already.

I'm trying to remember him. What was the name he used on here?

I tried and got right on this morning, and just tried again and had no problem at all. Clicking through the screens works without any lag too. Our state's blue cross site was a little slow loading first thing this a.m., but an hour later it loaded without delay too.

Jack is correct on the part about the RMD. IRA-based plans would require the distribution. Thanks for the correction.

Yes, I had a client ask the same question this year. As long as he is still working with earnings, he can continue to contribute to a SIMPLE IRA. There is an exclusion from the RMD rule for those that are still working IF they own no more than 5% of the company. Those working with more than 5% ownership in the company must take the RMD.

I thought it might too, but the vulnerability of our personal information is something that everyone here should be made aware of, and some members aren't reading the Politics forum posts. My own opinion on this is that all of that information is already out their for hackers and thieves to steal. Just because someone is bonded, or works for your doctor, insurance agent, or other financial professionals, doesn't guarantee that they are, or will remain, trustworthy either. If the discussion stays within the narrow topic of identity theft, then it should stay here. If it diverges into ranting and bashing of the ACA, the president, or Congress, it could always be moved to the Politics forum later on.

This video was the one that gave me a good laugh today - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEX-48RHCY&feature=youtu.be

I think this also. I also think that the EAs should be included as exempt along with the CPAs and attorneys. They've passed an exam and are required to have CPE credits. Why would the EAs not be exempted? Seems like a money grab to me.

You didn't say what type of insurance coverage this was, what the payment was for, or how it was reported to your client. Those would all have been helpful for us to know too. Aflac has a variety of policies for accident, life, disability, health, etc.

"Stepping into the void left when a federal court threw out the IRS’s registered tax return preparer program...." http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/News/20138764.htm

Jack, I said I am not easily offended. I saw the "joke" and let it stand even though it was personally not fun for me to see. I try to put personal feelings aside and be fair. What speaks more loudly to me is that after someone said that he was offended by the joke, you chose to further offend by posting a poem and your quip "sanity is overrated!!"

Happy birthday! I hope you are back too.

Aye, alrighty then me hearties. Rum, meat pie and honey bread for Capt'n Jack and all who played along or liked the thread. Watered down stale ale and maggoty, moldy bread for those that didn't. lol

Aye, that bilge rat Beiber...send him over the side...it's into the sea with him. Hoist the sails! It's time to find the treasure.

Avast, ye hearties, it's Talk Like A Pirate Day. Put on yer eye patch, an if yer not yet elbow deep in grog, it be a fine day for swabbin' the deck, mateys. Arrrgh! Today, I be know as Luna Silverblade. Here's a song to get ye going (lol at the 1:10 mark) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJUo5MDDmA8&feature=player_embedded Bonus - wear an eye patch into any Krispy Kreme shop today and you get a free glazed doughnut. Dress like a pirate and receive a dozen.

I can't answer for the 2010 program, but I just tested this for you in the 2011 and 2012 and the 4562 input screen's first box has selections for A,C,E,F, 2106, 4835, Auto, 8829, K1P, and K1S. Selecting K1P does carry the depreciation to pg 2 of Sch E as UPE. Be sure to click on the drop down to look at all of the choices for that first box because maybe what's written as the description of the box isn't showing all the choices that are available.

Theft of a/c units isn't uncommon at all. Thieves have even been stealing the industrial sized units from commercial buildings and churches. The easier ones to steal are the apartment complexes where the units might all be in one location. Sometimes the whole unit is stolen, but sometimes only the coil is removed and the copper and aluminum is turned in for the scrap metal price. It's been an ongoing problem for a while now.

Check out this link to IRS manual for its auditors, specifically 4.11.7.5 Shareholder's Gain or Loss. If a series of payments are received, the basis is fully recovered first before reporting the gain, or if a loss then it is not allowed until the final amounts are received. In your case, you'd apply basis up to the amount distribution for 2012, and the remainder of the basis would be applied against the amount in 2013. Something was bugging me about the installment sale issue, so I looked a little further. It's still a cap gain transaction though. http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-011-007.html From Pub 550 - Liquidating Distributions Liquidating distributions, sometimes called liquidating dividends, are distributions you receive during a partial or complete liquidation of a corporation. These distributions are, at least in part, one form of a return of capital. They may be paid in one or more installments. You will receive Form 1099-DIV from the corporation showing you the amount of the liquidating distribution in box 8 or 9. Any liquidating distribution you receive is not taxable to you until you have recovered the basis of your stock. After the basis of your stock has been reduced to zero, you must report the liquidating distribution as a capital gain. Whether you report the gain as a long-term or short-term capital gain depends on how long you have held the stock. See Holding Period in chapter 4. Stock acquired at different times. If you acquired stock in the same corporation in more than one transaction, you own more than one block of stock in the corporation. If you receive distributions from the corporation in complete liquidation, you must divide the distribution among the blocks of stock you own in the following proportion: the number of shares in that block over the total number of shares you own. Divide distributions in partial liquidation among that part of the stock redeemed in the partial liquidation. After the basis of a block of stock is reduced to zero, you must report the part of any later distribution for that block as a capital gain. Distributions less than basis. If the total liquidating distributions you receive are less than the basis of your stock, you may have a capital loss. You can report a capital loss only after you have received the final distribution in liquidation that results in the redemption or cancellation of the stock. Whether you report the loss as a long-term or short-term capital loss depends on how long you held the stock. See Holding Period in chapter 4.

Google "asset sale vs stock sale C corp" and you'll get lots of good info, but not specifically about the box 8 handling. The double tax is why the seller prefers a stock sale because it's one tax at the shareholder level at cap gain rates. Asset sales are what the purchaser wants so they get the step up in basis of depreciable assets, and they usually don't assume the debt or have the potential headaches of issues like product liability and warranty issues, contract disputes, and employee lawsuits.

That's the double taxation problem with C corps when a sale is structured as an asset sale, and the income is taxed as ordinary income, usually at the highest rate. And then when the funds are distributed in payment of the owner's stock, it's taxed again as the capital gain. That's why I asked what happened to his stock, how it was disposed of. It sounds like this was really an asset sale where the cash went into the corp, the corp recognized the sale of assets being sold on 4797, and then the corp paid the shareholder the cash to liquidate/redeem the shares. Is that what happened? >>as a Sch D to the extent of basis<< No, the total liquidating distribution is treated just like proceeds of sale of stock sold through a broker. The amount in box 8 does not belong on Sch B, and it is not nontaxable if you were thinking it is the same as a return of capital. In your case because the stock was owned since the 1990s, the excess over basis will be a long term cap gain. If all of the funds were received in one year, you'd report the full amount as proceeds and the full cost/basis on Sch D. In this case, I agree with Michael that you'll have to decide about either reporting it as an installment sale over the 2 periods, or you'll allocating basis to be applied against the amounts received in each year.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say last night, at some point the shareholder has to recognize gain on the sale/liquidation of his shares. Cap gain treatment is why a stock sale of a C corp is more desirable from the seller's point of view rather than selling the assets. Just as an example because I'm not sure if this is what happened in Catherine's case, even if a corp does a tax free exchange of its stock for stock in the purchaser's new corp so that purchaser gets a step up on the assets, and then sells those shares in new corp, the shareholder's basis remains the same and cap gain is the proper treatment on the shareholder's return.