jklcpa

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.

Found their website too. Strawberry pie!!!!!!

The Spot is exactly the kind of place my husband and I search out when traveling instead of eating at the national chain-type fast food places where it's the same no matter where you are in the country. Check this out from youtube:

Thank you

Yes, it is possible. The LLC first has to file the Form 8832 Entity Classification to elect to be taxed as a corporation, and then it files the Form 2553. Even a single-member LLC can elect to be taxed as a corporation. Below is an pretty good article that discusses the merits of doing this. Be careful that you don't end up with an undesired result like having appreciated real estate in a corporation though. http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/news/tax-info/llc-plus-scorp-equal-best-of-both.aspx

If the separation agreement or divorce agreement is executed in a manner where both parties agree that it is not alimony, then it isn't taxable to the recipient and isn't deductible by the payer. See the portion cut & pasted from Pub 17 for how both parties CAN agree that the payments are not alimony. From Pub 17 - (note: this is when it would be alimony. See bold item below) Alimony requirements. A payment to or for a spouse under a divorce or separation instrument is alimony if the spouses do not file a joint return with each other and all the following requirements are met. The payment is in cash. The instrument does not designate the payment as not alimony. Spouses legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance are not members of the same household. There is no liability to make any payment (in cash or property) after the death of the recipient spouse. The payment is not treated as child support. Each of these requirements is discussed below. Payments designated as not alimony. You and your spouse can designate that otherwise qualifying payments are not alimony. You do this by including a provision in your divorce or separation instrument that states the payments are not deductible as alimony by you and are excludable from your spouse's income. For this purpose, any instrument (written statement) signed by both of you that makes this designation and that refers to a previous written separation agreement is treated as a written separation agreement (and therefore a divorce or separation instrument). If you are subject to temporary support orders, the designation must be made in the original or a later temporary support order. Your spouse can exclude the payments from income only if he or she attaches a copy of the instrument designating them as not alimony to his or her return. The copy must be attached each year the designation applies.

Check out this site with its listing of alternative Pi Days and Pi Approximation Days. http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/world/pi-day

Thank you, 7204 MEM! I have a consult with a new client coming up where your post will be very helpful.

If you were posting a set of books for the supplies paid for personally and used in the business as a capital contribution, what would be your offsetting debit then? I would debit an expense account and deduct those expenses. Am I wrong on this? If Terry is correct, then what is the benefit of showing this as a contribution of capital? Wouldn't the partners be better off showing this as an unreimb'd partnership expense on their personal returns?

Have you actually e-filed the return for the dependent yet and know that it was accepted by IRS? Are you sure that the dependent didn't file his/her own return? This could also be an identity theft issue.

The part of the reimbursement that is attributable to the loss on the sale of the house is taxed as wages as ordinary income. From 1.82-1(a)(5): (a) Reimbursements in gross income (5) Attributable to employment or self-employment. Any amount received or accrued from an employer, a client, a customer, or similar person in connection with the performance of services for such employer, client, customer, or similar person, is attributable to employment or self-employment. Thus, for example, if an employer reimburses an employee for a loss incurred on the sale of the employee's house, reimbursement is attributable to the performance of services if made because of the employer-employee relationship. Similarly, if an employer in order to prevent an employee's sustaining a loss on a sale of a house acquires the property from the employee at a price in excess of fair market value, the employee is considered to have received a payment attributable to employment to the extent that such payment exceeds the fair market value of the property. How to report on Form 3903 depends on how the reimbursement was reported on W-2: If reimb is only in box 12 with code P, and moving expenses exceeded that amount, Form 3903 should report all allowable expenses and report the reimbursement. If the reimb is in box 12 is equal to the expenses, do not file Form 3903 to claim the deduction, since the TP has been fully reimbursed. If your reimb is split between box 1 (wages) and box 12, and expenses are more than what is in box 12, file Form 3903 with all expenses, but only report the reimbursements in box 12. If all of the reimbursement in box 1, file Form 3903 with all expenses, but do not report the reimbursements.

Yeah, none of the billing methods will be perfect. Charging by the form or line entry isn't any more accurate. That's why SFA adjusts the form charge to factor in complexity. I charge by the hour because I don't want the hassle of sitting down and figuring out a fee for each form, line entry, etc. I try to be fair where if I feel I'm slow or the fee looks a lot bigger than last year, I go back and compare the two to see where the differences are. If there are additional meetings, research needed, additional complexities that weren't in the prior year, then yes, the fee should be higher. If it's the same return as the prior year and it's a year that I've raised my hourly rate, then I automatically expect that the return will cost more by roughly that same % increase. If I feel that I should know something but am looking something up for my own assurance, then I don't charge that time. Likewise, I am not going to charge a client if I am stumbling with an input issue (how do I make my tax prep software do this?) or if my software or printer is having problems. Like SFA, when I am done, I step back and look and the bill to see that it is fair. I don't have any complainers, and that tells me that I am probably undercharging on some.

Are you sure there is no basis? This is why I'm asking- If the partnership has income and the partners draw virtual all funds out as guaranteed payments or draws, then what resources were used to purchase the equipment that you are trying to take the sec 179 deduction on? Was this paid by cash from the biz or financed with the biz as the borrower? Or was it paid for with partners' personal funds or a personal credit card?

Even when you click on the box for More Reply Options there's no emoticons? I'm using FF right now and I can see them all. Do you have the other formatting options available or are they all greyed out? If they are greyed out, click the first icon on the left in the top row that says BBCodeMode to shut that off and the other functions will come back.

Basis is your problem. They would have to have basis to take the 179 deduction. If no basis it will carryover. Would the partnership still have a loss if you hadn't taken the 179? If you are using ATX, the program will produce a very nice basis worksheet with the 1065. It used to be located as one of the tabs on the Sch K-1 screens. Look at that, and if you've input everything correctly and the partners really don't have basis, you should see that it will be showing that the 179 isn't allowed. The individual returns have the basis and at-risk limitation inputs that are needed so that the program properly handles the items flowing from the K-1 onto the personal returns.