Margaret CPA in OH

Well dang, I thought it was something I kept doing wrong occasionally because it was random. It just happened today with a Kentucky return. I ended up just printing the state return separately. It's annoying but good to know that it isn't necessarily me.

That was great! I think even better than the original. My mood has really changed for the better now. Jainen, where do you come up with these things? Thanks!

Think Star Wars and the droids - androids. R2D2 was similar in shape to a canister vacuum cleaner and 3CPO was upright, humanoid in shape but upright. You ARE familiar with Star Wars, are you not?

I LOVE this thread! I really needed this laugh today.

The attachment worked fine for me, too. I was trying to help Cientax for whom it did not work. I hope the problem was resolved some way or other.

Did you remember to put in the client's date of birth on the filier's info tab? The penalty, or lack thereof, should calculate properly then.

Try this http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f941x.pdf for form and this http://search.irs.gov/web/query.html?col=a...q=&qt=941xe for information.

That makes perfect sense. I don't keep the books for the rental but will suggest that the client set up the negative amount and apply expenses against it. I think that will make sense to him and also help him remember that he has that money for that specific purpose. Thanks so much. The Credits (Genesis Gift Fund and paid by lender) are under a line that says " Existing loan(s) taken subject to." Any ideas what that means?

No, I don't think you are wrong. The situation here is that the second unit has to be placed into service at the lower of cost or FMV when placed into service. The FMV not only dropped, but the ratio of non-depreciable land to total value significantly increased further decreasing the amount of depreciation available to the client. The appraised value very closely approximates the FMV here because all the reappraisals were done using recent sales in the neighborhood within the month of appraisal. Due to the decline in the economy, the values dropped. I just don't get why the land value appreciated so much but the overall value declined. The auditor's office just said they used a different appraisal firm.

I like your 2 cents. I just think they are being deprived of depreciation on the second rental now that the land has been valued to a much greater percentage than 3 years earlier. I can't figure out any better determination, though. And, as you noted, it is defensible by virtue of the auditor's valuation and the economic changes over time. FMV is FMV... Thanks, again!

Thanks, Bulldog Tom. Are you sure it would reduce the basis if used for improvements? It would seem, since you raised the issue, to increase the basis. I don't know, though. Any insights about the other land valuation issue I posted a little earlier? That one has me stumped!

The client who bought a second property has some strange entries on the closing docs. This is in a poorer neighborhood so he also received $26,993 in rehab money (line 805), Supl. Orig (Reno) of $408.64 (line 807), a Genesis Gift Fund Credit (line 204), and Credit paid by lender (line 205). I'm really not sure how to handle these items none of which have I seen before and none of which are listed in my handy dandy QF p. 7-3. Any help would be appreciated!

A client purchased a 2 family home in 2005. I deducted the value (per auditor's website) of land from total purchase and determined the depreciable amount of the rental by the ratio of square footage. In September, client bought a second 2 family and moved into one unit there and began renting the second unit in the first property. I checked the auditor's website to see if the valuation had changed. It did decrease from $185,000 to $176,440. The real problem is that the land value increased from $9800 to $24,000. I called the auditor's office for an explanation. He said they changed valuation companies in part because of the undervaluation of land by the prior company. So, how do I now value the second unit? The ratios are so different, from 5.3% to 13.6%. It doesn't seem right that the depreciation allocable to the second unit should be so much lower in dollars as a result of the land value and not just the fmv of the property. Thanks for input.

Here is the link <http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2043.pdf> I had the same question last week when I chose the wrong term to use. Instead of cycle I was looking for schedule or calendar.

I AM older then dirt. I remember all of them...

It happened to me, too, a while ago. I just shut down the program and waited a few minutes. When I tried again, it went will. I think perhaps too many folks at once were trying to update and overloaded the system.

It appears as though the client has a fiscal year end. The short year is correct and you probably put the dates at the top of the form since it was a fiscal ye. Since the next fiscal year began in 2007, it is also a 2007 return and would be for a full year with the correct dates at the top.

I am soooo happy that I don't have any clients like that. I've been fortunate in my practice. I think I've had one person who didn't know she qualified for EIC until I told her and that was just one bad year. And none of my clients ever call to ask when it will be done, etc. If that did happen, I like your response!

Yes, Happy Birthday and welcome to this board. I remember your name from the other board and am still curious about that great combination of letters. Some folks here are so creative and then there are some, like me, who just use my name. Anyway, welcome and celebrate your day!

The best tip I received regarding Austratian wines is to choose one with an animal on the label. In Reno on vacation last year, we followed that hint and bought Mattie's Perch Cabernet. The koala bear was adorable! And the wine, at a bargain price, was quite good.

WOO HOO!!! I just got 2 acks for 1099's including one for the rejected one from 1.20 - the one with no rejection errors. I am now just mint green...

Thanks, Eli, and others. I used "calendar," "schedule," and "list" but not "cycle." At least I knew where to turn when my independent efforts failed. What a great group!

Well, then, Catherine, I count myself in good company, frustrated though we are!

I just updated and have the same version. If you have Max, there have been many updated forms from the states as well as the federal.

Thanks for the additional references. It seems I already have each of the links in my favorites! Someone must have mentioned them along the way but always good reminders. I too use the Quickfinder books. I tried the Taxbook 2 years but came back to Quickfinders because I am more used to them and I like having the 2 separate books for individuals and business.