Lee B

It seems to me that you would have the same security as you would with any unencrypted email.

I am also downsizing and would be interested in a basic low volume E Fax service, preferably one where I can port over my current fax number . Thanks in advance,

I am a 20 year ATX user who switched to Drake for this last tax season. I purchased Drake 2017 and did not purchase ATX 2017. Looking back, I can't think of a single reason why I should have purchased ATX 2017. The conversion went well without too many hiccups. You can check some of my posts in this forum earlier this year

I wouldn't reach any conclusions until I had my client check to see how much was debited from their checking account.

Copied from Tax Pro Today: Connecticut Pass-Through Tax Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed legislation in May that sets a 6.99 percent levy — the state’s top marginal individual income tax rate — on pass-through entities, which report their income on owners’ personal returns. Pass-through owners then get a credit equal to 93 percent of the owner’s share of tax paid by the business. The strategy effectively lets pass-through owners take bigger federal write-offs to help offset their previously unlimited SALT deductions. For example, if a Connecticut partnership has two partners and $1 million in income in total, it would pay the state $69,000 under the new pass-through entity tax. That would leave $931,000 of taxable income to pass along to the two partners. The two partners could deduct 93 percent of that $69,000, or $32,085 each, from their federal tax bills — an offset that could compensate for the SALT cap. Still, some tax professionals aren’t sure the state’s plan, which took effect on Jan. 1, will work. Depending on how much income your pass-through makes, the workaround “might not cover your SALT bill,” said John Ermer, an accountant and tax partner at Beers, Hamerman, Cohen & Burger in New Haven, Connecticut. If the IRS were to issue regulations striking down these types of arrangements, or the arrangements were challenged in an audit, taxpayers could be in a position where they pay the state more than their tax bill was in the first place, said Michael D’Addio, a principal at accounting firm Marcum.

It seems to me that this is like saying that there is no difference between the valuation of standing timber and the value of the same timber delivered as logs to the log deck of a lumber mill.

Possi, Just in case that you also use ATX, ATX uses a number of hidden files. Carbonite will not back up any hidden files.

The best workaround that I have read about would have the states tax S Corporations and Partnerships at the entity level since state and local taxes on business profits at the entity level are always deductible. I wonder, if it would be possible to structure a state or local tax at the Schedule C or Schedule E level ? Hmmmm

Industry Groups urge fixes for errors in TCJA By Michael Cohn Published August 22 2018, 4∶18pm EDT A broad coalition of hundreds of industry associations and companies sent a letter Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin urging him to resolve errors in last year’s tax code overhaul related to depreciation rules and net operating loss carrybacks. The nearly 300 business groups include the National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant Association, the National Grocers Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Theater Owners, as well as large companies such as McDonald’s, Best Buy, Kroger, Wendy’s and Yum Brands. The hastily drafted tax legislation sailed through Congress late last year with few hearings, driven by Republicans eager to pass the bill before the end of the year. By passing it last December, they were able to use a budget reconciliation procedure that allowed it to pass in the Senate without the threat of a filibuster. The text on draft versions of some provisions was written by hand, and Democrats objected to the way the bill was being rushed through Congress, warning it would need technical corrections. Bloomberg News Last week, a group of Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee asked the IRS and the Treasury Department to issue guidance based on their explanation of the “congressional intent” behind several provisions, including the net operating loss deduction and qualified improvement property expensing referred to in the industry letter (see Senate Republicans clarify intent of TCJA provisions). Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, remodeling and other improvements to stores or buildings were supposed to be fully depreciated in the first year the work is done. Instead, a mistake in the legislative language requires the depreciation to be done over the course of 39 years. In a separate error, the legislation made a mistake in the effective date of carryback eligibility, which the industry groups complained would lead to a retroactive tax increase on businesses with losses, some of which are already facing liquidity issues. The timing difference is crucial for cash-strapped businesses that were counting on the carryback to finance their continuing operations as well as investments needed to revitalize their businesses, they pointed out. Brickand- mortar retail chains across the country like Toys 'R' Us have been closing in recent years because of competition from online retailers like Amazon They complained that confusion over the provisions is keeping them from improving property in businesses such as restaurants and stores. “The delay in correcting these provisions has caused economic hardship (that is) delaying investments across the economy that impact the communities in which these companies are doing business,” the groups wrote in a letter. “We urge the Treasury Department to issue guidance that will assure that these provisions are administered as intended by Congress.” In addition to economic impact, the groups said the drafting errors have raised safety concerns by delaying projects such as upgrading sprinkler systems, “creating a more perilous situation for our nation’s firefighters.” They argued that the need to correct the errors is becoming more urgent because most retailers have to file their first income tax returns related to the change on November 15, according to the letter. A national chain can file up to 100 federal, state and local income tax returns and, if the errors aren’t corrected before then, may have to file 100 amended returns once the mistakes are fixed. Such a time-consuming and costly process, the industry groups noted, would contradict President Trump’s executive order in April 2017 aimed at reducing tax regulatory burdens.

Additional information on the K-1s will be required due to the definition of what constitutes Qualified Business Income, more than what was required for the DPAD.

I totally agree

Yes, filing the 3115 is definitely the right way to handle these issues.

It's probably referring to a newer USB 3.0 port instead of an older USB 2.0 port which your computer probably has.

An excellent detailed analysis in The Tax Advisor: https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2018/aug/c-corp-s-corp-tax-reform.html?utm_source=mnl:cpald&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=14Aug2018

I would send them priority

You can have negative Retained Earning, but not negative Capital Stock.

There is a proposed technical corrections bill floating around, but it isn't expected to be to be passed until December. Supposedly a fix for this problem is not currently included, because the politicians don't want to admit that they made any mistakes ! I am shocked, shocked I tell you

I don't know the answer to this issue, but saying that, "It was just a banking error" seems to me to minimize what could be a problem.

Actually in the TCJA, exemptions still exist. The TCJA has temporarily reduced them to $ 0.

You are overstating the risk with lots of hyperbole. Windows 8.1 is on extended support until January 2023. Windows 7 Pro is receiving extended support from Microsoft until January 15, 2020, which means that Microsoft is still issuing updates and patches for all known security risks until that time. I receive weekly security risk definition updates and large monthly software updates and patches..

Here is a summary from the Journal of Accountancy: The IRS issued proposed regulations on Wednesday regarding the qualified trade or business income deduction under Sec. 199A, which was enacted by P.L. 115-97, the law known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) (REG-107892-18). At the same time, it issued Notice 2018-64, which provides guidance on how to compute W-2 wages for purposes of the deduction, along with FAQs. The proposed rules include a way that taxpayers can group or aggregate separate trades or businesses and an anti-abuse rule designed to prevent taxpayers from separating out parts of an otherwise disqualified business in an attempt to qualify those separated parts for the Sec. 199A deduction. The deduction, which is in effect for the first time in 2018, allows owners of sole proprietorships, partnerships, trusts, and S corporations to deduct 20% of their qualified business income (QBI). The deduction is generally available to taxpayers whose 2018 taxable incomes fall below $315,000 for joint returns and $157,500 for other taxpayers. The deduction is generally equal to the lesser of 20% of the taxpayer’s QBI plus 20% of the taxpayer’s qualified real estate investment trust (REIT) dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership (PTP) income, or 20% of taxable income minus net capital gains. Deductions for taxpayers above the $157,500/$315,000 thresholds may be limited; the application of those limits is described in the proposed regulations. The IRS is requesting comments on all of the proposed rules, which must be received within 45 days of the date they are published in the Federal Register. The Service noted that, although the rules will not be effective until published as final in the Federal Register, taxpayers may rely on them until then. The regulations address a variety of subjects. Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.199A-1 contains the operational rules, including how to determine the deduction for taxpayers with incomes at or below the threshold amounts and for those with incomes above the thresholds. It also contains definitions of the following terms: aggregated trade or business, applicable percentage, phase-in range, qualified business income, QBI component, qualified PTP income, qualified REIT dividends, reduction amount, relevant passthrough entity (RPE), specified service trade or business (SSTB), threshold amount, total QBI amount, unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property, and W-2 wages. The definition of a trade or business is also in this section; the IRS decided to apply the definition of “trade or business” contained in Sec. 162(a) because the definition of trade or business under Sec. 162 is derived from a large amount of case law and administrative guidance interpreting the meaning of trade or business in the context of a broad range of industries. This will provide for administrable rules that are appropriate for the purposes of Sec. 199A and that taxpayers have experience applying, and the IRS believes it will reduce compliance costs, burden, and administrative complexity. Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.199A-2 contains rules for determining W-2 wages and the UBIA of qualified property, both of which are components in calculating limitations on the deduction. The rules for determining W-2 wages are based on the rules under the repealed Sec. 199 deduction for qualified domestic production activities, except, unlike Sec. 199, the Sec. 199A W-2 wages are determined separately for each trade or business. Prop Regs. Sec. 1.199A-3 restates the definitions in Sec. 199A(c) and provides additional guidance on the determination of QBI, qualified REIT dividends, and qualified PTP income. Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.199A-4 contains aggregation rules allowing separate trades or businesses to be grouped when applying the Sec. 199A rules. The IRS rejected comments suggesting the application of the grouping rules under Sec. 469, the passive loss provision, and instead proposed a flexible method that looks into common ownership, shared services, and other commonality, but specifically excludes SSTBs from being aggregated under the rules. The regulations impose a duty of consistency that requires that once multiple trades or businesses are aggregated into a single aggregated trade or business under Sec. 199A, taxpayers must consistently report the aggregated group in subsequent tax years. Aggregation allows for ease of administration and was one of the AICPA’s recommendations in a letter it sent to the IRS in February. Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.199A-5 defines specified service trades or businesses and the trade or business of performing services as an employee. The regulations include an anti-abuse rule designed to prevent taxpayers from separating out parts of what otherwise would be an integrated SSTB, such as the administrative functions, in an attempt to qualify those separated parts for the Sec. 199A deduction. Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.199A-6 contains special rules for RPEs, PTPs, trusts, and estates that these entities may need to follow for purposes of computing the entities’ or their owners’ Sec. 199A deductions. Prop. Regs. Sec. 1.643(f)-1 addresses concerns regarding the abusive use of multiple trusts by confirming the applicability of Sec. 643(f). Sec. 643(f) permits the IRS to issue regulations to prevent taxpayers from establishing multiple nongrantor trusts or contributing additional capital to multiple existing nongrantor trusts in order to avoid federal income tax. Notice 2018-64, issued contemporaneously with the proposed regulations, contains a proposed revenue procedure with three methods for calculating W-2 wages (1) for purposes of the limitation based on W-2 wages to the amount of the deduction for qualified business income under Sec. 199A; and (2) for purposes of the reduction to the Sec. 199A deduction based on W-2 wages for certain specified agricultural and horticultural cooperative patrons. — Sally P. Schreiber ([email protected]) is a JofA senior editor

I especially agree with the comment that the form changes may cause more confusion with the increased possibility of missed deductions.

Part B can only be postponed without penalty as long as you have qualifying employer provided health insurance. Just went thru this with my wife who just retired several months ago at age 69 after being a nurse for 45 years. She had to prove she had qualifying employer provided health insurance so that she could avoid the penalty being added to her Part B premium. My wife signed up for Medicare Part A at age 65, because once you turn age 65, most employer coverage considers Medicare Part A to be primary, which would be a nasty surprise if you turned 65 and hadn't signed up for Medicare Part A expecting your employer health insurance to pick up everything. In which case this TP may be making a serious mistake ! Also Part D ( Prescription Coverage) can not be postponed, because I missed the deadline by 30 days 6 years ago and now I pay a $3.30 monthly penalty which is added to my monthly Part D premium.

1. You can sign up for social security and delay benefits, not aware that you can do that for Medicare. 2. As long as the TP has Employer provided qualifying HDP health insurance then the TP can delay signing up for Medicare without penalty. 3. Once the spouse signed up for Medicare, her allowable HSA contribution drops to zero, so the TP contribution would be based on one person.

Yeah, I switched to Drake for 2017. I needed to do several 2016 tax returns, so I receive the same exact message when I try to open ATX 2016. Since I didn't renew with ATX for 2017, I no longer receive any support. Fortunately I was able to do these returns with Drake 2016.