SunTaxMan

I am getting ready, by necessity, to clean computer. I have XP. I remember discussion about an ATX incompatibility with Windows 7. My computer guru wants to know if the incompatibility is with 64 or 32 bit.

Also, he tells me that within Win7 is the capability to operate with a "virtual XP." Does this have any significance to the incompatibility issue?

I would like to know what years are not compatible with Win 7.

Thanks,

One fine point. The 1099 for auto allowance is not subject to SE. It is a 2106 reimbursement as MAMalody has said. It is not compensation for services - so no SE.

One fine point. The 1099 for auto allowance is not subject to SE. It is a 2106 reimbursement as MAMalody has said. It is not compensation for services - so no SE.

Tomorrow ... time for pillow talk now.

NATP seems like a good source of email/newsletters. Worth the membership for that alone. Their seminars are strictly "tax" based. Some instructors have no background in Accounting. Some have background in financial planning. Which all means limited frame of reference in understanding the "why" of the tax returns. Periodically NATP has a special seminar that is especially valuable, but generally Gear Up my favorites, especially those offered by Maryland Society of Accts.

Insufficient information for us, I think.

A solution I thought of to use periodically, in addition to normal back ups, is to copy the "database" folder to a different location - perhaps as end-of-day or weekly.

Why would want to separate data from program?

"double-dipping?" Sure it would be, but there have been, and continue to be, some "little things" in tax law that are just that. I was hoping.....

Client has contractor's invoice for replacement door and windows, with notation, "The windows and door on this repair qualify for federal energy efficient deduction of $1500.00."

Problem is that this repair was for a business property, not a residence. Form 5695 deal with RESIDENTIAL property. I don't think this taxpayer's expense qualifies - this is not the residence.

Is there a credit available for businesses?

Thanks,

Taxpayer IS 2%+ Shareholder. Box 5 has entry. In fact, W-2 boxes with entries are 1 through 6, 12, and 15 through 1 7.

I wondered if the problem is "operator error," (as it so often is with "computer" problems) but.....

1120S Health Insurance, added to W-2, box 1. K-1 shows loss for the year. Return shows W-2 income well in excess of health insurance. Health Insurance shows on Schedule A, but not 1040, page 1 as adjustment. I am assuming the loss on K-1 prohibits the 1040 adjustment of AGI, but I wanted to make sure.

Thanks,

I have been accused of this before. I do appreciate your observation.

Since it is required in the franchise agreement, I would consider it a "reasonable & necessary" cost of operating the business. I would think the "not suitable for street wear" requirement applies to the employee, not to the employer. But, I don't have much experience with employers' returns.

It would seem "required" and "...employee" would be enough to "tip the scales" in favor of deducting..... Let's see what the next 24 hours produces in comments.

Thanks,

I would deduct them as uniforms. If you were not an employee who would wear them? I have even seen companies buy hats with the names on them and give them out and that goes to advertising.

bcolleen,

I still have reservations. "...who would wear them?" This could include any number or caliber of persons - including, but not limited to the people who wear clothing that says "FBI" or "NYPD" or "Land's End." I see no difference in this and any person who likes Subway or Philadelphia Eagles and would wear their shirt, jacket, etc. The "uniforms" in question have not been "given away as advertising," but provided, as a necessary item of attire on the job, to employees.

As far as "hats with name on them...advertising," I understand the advertising perspective - these items were indeed given away so advertising could be accomplished. As far as "advertiting" for clothing worn "in-house" or "on the job" by employees, the limitation I have seen used is the actual cost of the advertising symbol, or embroidery, not the entire cost of the piece of clothing (UNLESS that piece of clothing was in reality, "not-suitable for street wear," as in a vehicle mechanic's 'uniform.')

I do wonder, along these lines of thinking, whether these "uniform" items could be diminis employee benefit, AS clothing - never mind the advertising benefit.

I do appreciate your comment. One of the advantages of this board is the motivation to "think," often "outside the box." I agree that this is the way "uniforms" have often been deducted over the years, but I question the ability for this reasoning to withstand an audit.

Perhaps not enough information. Of your 273 "overnight stays," I am assuming that this does NOT include the first day and the last day of each trip - because the first day of each trip would be followed by a night away from home AND the last day of each trip would NOT be followed by an overnight away, so the first "overnight day" and the last day would count as 1.5 days.

BECAUSE you have shown "Depart and Return," I interpret that as the first and last day of each overnight TRIP. If this is true, all ok.

Subway franchise restaurant owner. Franchise requires specified "uniforms" with Subway logo to be worn. Business owner buys uniforms for all employees. Doesn't seem to fit the "not suitable for street wear" description. No sensible risk of grease, oils, etc, contaminaton, that would make them "not suitable for street wear" (as in vehicle mechanic's uniforms.) I am thinking this is NOT a deductible expense for the business, as "uniforms.". Could this be deductible as an employee "benefit?" (Owner and all employees wear the uniform.) Thoughts?

Thanks for the responses. Sometimes it is difficult to see the woods for the trees. As soon as I saw the responses, I realized my error in thinking. Of course, the retirement income is taxable. The disability exception is for the early withdrawal penalty.

Thanks for "slapping my fingers."

Apparently not yet available for Android phones???

Client, age 57. Retired on disability and collecting SS Disability, has received 2 1099-Rs from two different issuers:

1. IRA, Dist code 3. Box 1 and 2a filled in. Box 2b checked for "taxable amount not determined."

2. Pension, Dist code 2. Box 1 and 2a filled in. Box 2b NOT checked.

ATX is handling both as fully taxable and I don't think either should be.

On the 1040 "Filer's Information" worksheet, "Disabled" is checked.

Am I missing something?

Possibilities I see:

On the 1099R worksheet, if I leave box 2a blank, handling is non-taxable (but this does not agree with 1099-R as issued. (accuracy-related penalty possibility?).

Enter the 1099-Rs in ATX as issued and use line 21 on the 1040 for a subtraction figure, with explanation on the line 21 worksheet.

Thoughts?

I agree that thus "system" shows an untrue picture of Gross Revenue, but the Net Profit is accurate.

But.... the boat operator us not receiving, actually or constructively, 100%

If the client who sold the boat is not involved in the day to day fishing activity, just receiving the proceeds and forwarding 75% to buyer, why not that same 75% as rental income on Sched E, with identical payout as expense on E and 25% split as income on 6252 and B?

R fassett, Are you sure you don't have that backwards?

I thought POA ends on DOD, not "incompetency." I thought POA purpose was to handle affairs in case of incompetency, or am I thinking of durable POA?