SunTaxMan

I have a Vanguard, 1099-DIV with nine different funds listed with dividends for each. Of those nine funds/dividends listed, there are 8 different "Payer's" FEIN. All entries have the same "Recipient Account number." Thinking about IRS requirements to list "each transaction" - do I need to list each FEIN on return, or can I get away with one total? Thanks,

Thanks, Not just the answer I thought was the correct one, but an additonal insight - "so the owner's liability can truly be limited" Thanks,

I agree with your comments, but you missed the question....... Is there any way to go from sole prop to llc without a new FEIN (and subsequent new registrations, accounts, etc.)? By the way the S election form is 2553.

Is there any way for sole proprietor to become LLC and opt for S-Corp without new FEIN? Any way to avoid new accounts for IRS, State withholding, SUTA..... I didn't think so, but I figured I may just not know everything.......

Taxpayer received a 1099SA, for HSA distribution, code 1 (Normal). The funds distributed were used for medical expenses. Do I need to account for this 1099 on the tax return - for matching purposes? Where? Thanks,

When you lose "trust" - and CCH has pretty well destroyed "trust" - it takes quite a while to rebuild that trust. I see some evidence of their attempt to rebuild..... Renew at this point - no way! Renew even a little early - again no way! Renew in Dec - maybe. Let's see what Mel does. I would much rather support Mel (and "take a chance on a new company/software) than "take a chance on CCH." I even think I would "renew" early with Mel - seems like the preferable choice. As far as price - a $300 increase is less than I was expecting from CCH.

You said, "Sometimes I just really frustrate myself." Welcome to the club!

JRS, Thanks. Your thought crossed my mind, especially as I read the "instructons" for the 1099-Misc, box 3. I like to consider all income taxable, unless, and until, I can rule it out of the "taxable" inclusion.

Fact 1 -- 1099-DIV from Morgan Stanley, Box 3, "Non-Dividend Income." $14.02. Fact 2 -- ATX is not carrying this $14.02 anywhere on the return. I think it should go on 1040, line 21, "Other Income" Confirmation or correction requested. Thanks

Mel, Can you give us an update on the development of your new program?

Two possibilities: 1. Issue 1099 Passthroughs to transfer money to the owners whose SS is not shown on the 1098, or 2. Make subtraction entries on the return of the receiver of the 1098, "Transferred to John Jones, xxx-xx-xxxx, co-owner of property." and a like entry on transferee's Schedule A - "Transferred from Jack Jones, xxx-xx-xxxx, co-owner of property and receiver of 1098." I have used both methods in the past and have had no problems.

There is no question CCH has done extreme damage to the ATX name and reputation with their "shoot themselves in the foot" actions lately. If they are going to TRY to resolve some of the dissatisfaction, I will welcome the attempt - it MAY save them losing this customer. How many customers can they afford to lose?

You know what it means to assume (that the homeowners' policy would cover)?

Everything looks good until.... "but probably not the other states" Nexus, source income, in any of those states will generate liability for tax. If he is "opening an office" in those states, definitely. If he is just "holding a meeting" - in a hotel, e.g., maybe not, BUT..... If I were an agent of state revenue/tax office, I would take position that any income generated from my state, is/has been generated because of a physical presence (marketing) in my state and that equals nexus. This is NOT direct mail, or telemarketing - not even via a web site. This is PHYSICAL presence! If the "business" form is other than a sole proprietorship, and this taxpayer is an employee of the business, that "marketing" meeting needs to be tracked in payroll for that state = nexus.

I question the wisdom of 2-up printing, but do suggest duplex printing.

What is this "paperless componet" in MAX

:scratch_head: I guess I will add my 2 cents' worth. At this point, at least, I am thinking that I will wait to make the decision for 2008 because of several possibilities: 1. To see if the general functioning of ATX (more tech support than program, I think) "improves with age and experience." There seems to be no doubt CCH has "shot themselves in the foot" in their handling of the ATX purchase and treatment of customers. BUT, perhaps, just perhaps, these "potholes" can, and will, be fixed. We'll see..... 2. I am wondering how, not IF, but how, the 2008 MAX product will change. 3. I am wondering how, not IF, but how, the 2008 product LINE will change. I think it is interesting to see CCH include the paperless component included "at no charge" this year. AND, to notice how they are "promoting" it! I am wondering how much of an increase this "inclusion" will make next next year's pricing. I don't WANT their paperless component. (I am happy with my own arrangements for a paperless office!) Will I have to accept it because it is "part of the package" - a package that could/may/might/will have a (substantial) increase in price? ESPECIALLY if the quality of service does not improve! Time will tell - but the picture is not improving - at least so far! But for now, well, I will "watch and wait," and of course, keep notes!

I guess I am wondering about this situation - that the cost of a sprayer COULD produce a loss on Sched. F. Is this a legitimate FARM or a hobby? I guess it COULD depend on the size (and price) of the "sprayer." From what you have said so far, I would want more information before deducting a loss on F, whether or not the loss is generated by 179 or not. And yes, I realize there are many small farms (legitimate FARMS) working year after year at a loss, but I would still want more information.

One issue that seems unclear, or at least, without consensus, or without addressing, in vaious sources - Are the premiums paid subject to SUTA, FUTA, WC? Thanks,

So far, I have been happy with Accountants' World, Payroll AC. www.accountantsworld.com I have used it starting 1-1-07. I have seen improvements and redesign, all to the good. Client access, ability to print on blank check stock or pre-printed. I have one client who want to physically write the checks - which is also permissible. Toll-free tech support, 9-5, M-F. Online knowledge base 24/7. Free webinars to learn program.

My 2 cents' worth..... I voted "yes" in the poll, but what I would REALLY like to see is a NEW Software Company to introduce a product with the capabilities of ATX, i.e., not just income tax forms, but sales, tax, unemployment tax, personal property tax, state registrations, payroll forms. ATX has been so much MORE than just an income tax return processing software. With ATX, I can do so much more than just the income tax returns. And to add write-up capability, we would no longer need Quicken, QuickBooks, etc........

So, I guess the only "variable" in this is how often, and by how much, and why, the 12 hours is exceeded. BUT, basically, unless there is more here to discuss, 1. This is a "local" operation, not an "overnight" situation, and 2. No meals allowed - end of story! HOWEVER, just in case, IF there is a "meal allowance" provided by the employer, this Driver has INCOME in excess of his deduction, which deduction is zero!

The type of truck is not relevant. The Dump Truck owner must have a DOT #, just like a carrier of any other product. Even the Dump Truck company who is hauling their own product out of their own quarry. The Driver, if the rig is registered for 25,000 pounds or more is required to have a CDL, which brings the Driver under HOS regs, either 12 clock hours or daily log. However, the "short-hual" dump truck driver, as a "first impression" of mine, from the knowledge I have of dump truck operation, is not traveling far enough from home to qualify for "overnight" meal expenses. Most "short-haul" dump trucks are traveling less than 100 miles from pick up to drop. Having said that, there ARE some commodities carried in a "Dump Truck" that involve long distances, i.e., 1,000 miles and up - but you have said "short haul." Perhaps a good question at this point is, "How long are the trips - in miles - how far from pick up to delivery point. Is there anything involved in the unloading, other than "dumping?" Are there long waits before being able to dump? and, for general information, how many axles on the truck, i.e., straight truck or T/T? And, what is the commodity? And of course, the question persists, IS this a "short-haul" dump Driver or a "theoretical" situation? I don't like "theoretical" - actual facts and circumstances questions make for a more definitive answer!

Gene, To be specific, IRS regs read that the trip must require "rest" not "sleep." AND, that for qualification for "overnight" meal expense, the trip does not need to be specifically "overnight" but has to be long enough to "require rest" before completing the trip. I concluded some years ago that DOT requires "rest" in the application of the Drivers Daily Log and the HOS regulations to make sure that the Professional Driver is adequately "rested" and thereby not a hazard on the highways. ((Whether that function of the HOS regs is accomplished on today's highways is another matter entirely!!!)) IRS also uses this word "rest." Within the intricacies of the HOS regs and the completion of the Drivers Daily Log AND the interaction between DOT and IRS regulations........ IF a Driver's DAILY trip is long enough that if that Driver was required to log the entire day on lines 3 and 4 of the Log Book, the trip could not be completed - that "rest" would be 'required' (that is adequate time on lines 1 and/or 2 of the log book) before the trip could be completed. IRS requirements for "rest" would be satisfied because DOT requirements for "rest" have been satisfied. This application works much more to the advantage of the Tour Bus Driver than the Truck Driver, because the Tour Bus Driver isn't restricted by the 14 hour rule that is applicable to the Truck Driver. Many Tour Bus Drivers put in 15 to 20 hour days, so the "requirement" for "rest" during the trip is required (and met) for DOT purposes (time on line 1 or 2 of the log). My thinking is that this means the "requirement" for "rest" is met for IRS purposes - even if no "sleep" is documented - "rest' is the significant word!

Many years ago in college in SC, I had a roommate from northern Maine, who just happened to mention that in a letter from home (this was WELL before cell phones!), his sister mentioned that it had been snowing and blowing and the drifting was "part way up over her window." My response was, "Boy, that must mean 5 or 6 feet of snowdrift!" His response, "Well, not exactly, 'her window' is her bedroom window and it's on the second floor!"