easytax

As we are responsible people for ourselves; our clients need to be responsible for themselves too. We may lose dollars but doing what is right and proper pays and is actually easier than doing wrong. You NEVER help someone by enabling them to do or continue to do something that ultimately can hurt them. Eventually even procrastination hurts those who do not learn to be timely --- your peace of mind is more important!

Good thought but definitely not a "life estate". I am getting more detail as it seems all was done prior to 2008-2010 as originally told to my client and for "other" reasons he had no knowledge of (till now). Sister is more forthcoming now. Thanks again to all for thoughts and information.

Mom basis was about 40K (will be confirming). I did not realize the $1 sale could be considered a gift and the daughter (in this case) would have a basis (to start) of more than $1 (mom basis of 40K). I was thinking a sale was a sale, etc. And the sales price was the daughters basis. I will also "LOCK" into my mind about using the giftor basis date for future information -- THANKS. All other data will be recompiled as you have me on the correct track - now.

Client mom died in 2015, sister had house sold to her for $1 sometime (2008 - 2010) thinking "best tax move" (). House remained sisters personal property with mom living there and mom paying all repairs, maintenance, bills, taxes, etc. until death - no rents, dep., anything, etc.. House was not of course included in mom's estate. Sister sold house 2017 putting my client (her brother) on deed 2 weeks before sale (no sale to brother, just a gift to brother). Made 135+K profit (sales price less cost of sale less basis ($1)) with half of profit flowing to brother in letter from her closing attorney. My thoughts -- Brothers basis is basically zero (since definitely a gain on sale, so FMV does not enter in here as it would in a sale of a "gifted" item and a loss) and we did tax estimates accordingly based on SHORT Term cap gain (became my clients as of two weeks before sale - so he held it only two weeks) ////. My question is -- is short term correct or should I be using the sisters original date of purchase as the brothers too? At short term tax due is 7K+ more than long term so we could save him some dollars. Sister told brother her tax guy said she had a capital loss (????), so no tax to her and said brother should have no tax due either. Hence, I am rethinking/rechecking my self and wondering what (if anything) I might be missing. Only thing I come up with is difference from short or long term based on basis (cost is simple at $1, just the time has me wondering and I can find nothing that speaks to 'time", just cost, valuation, etc.). Looking at items where "Gifting" is involved almost always takes me more time. Any comments, corrections, insight or general help IS appreciated. THANKS in advance.

Just nosy --- Did you file the 2010 and up returns so the statute of limitations applies? Yes, there may be no money consequences BUT maybe something in her upcoming VISA and of course Green Card requirements. With things as they are today, all T's corssed and I's dotted.

We are all "crazy Uncle Bobby" in our own right -- BUT -- all mesh nicely together - we could all break bread together and have a GREAT time! (I am the quiet one in the corner) Good folks, good times, GREAT information and willingness to help.

Agreed that although CPAacademy.com has most presenters there with a sales motive; most give good information and just mention sales. The information is timely and as you said free. IRS also uses CPAacademy.com to share their information and webinars with the only difference is CPAacademy.com is not allowed to record the IRS webinars for later playback (the others are usually archived for use later if desired). Here is another place for CE's for all from CPA's, EA's and we lowly AFSP folks. They are reasonable and even have different "specials" during the year. The self study is extremely welcome as I need a lot of breaks at times. Please contact Platinum Professional Services at 877 315-1772 or email us at [email protected] if you have any questions. By the way, here is a "special" just received: The promo code Celebration is valid from Wednesday, July 26th, 2017 at 10pm PST and expires Thursday, July 27th, 2017 at 10pm, PST. Offer good for one course per customer. No refunds given on prior orders. This offer is not applicable on already discounted group orders and promo codes can not be combined. Please note: offer is not valid on Yaeger's CPA review course.

If there is simply a sale without the gifting, would not the basis just be the amount of the sale? The gift would bring the basis back to the 100K but without the gifting, the sales price would be basis. Yea or nay?

JKLCPA, it did not seem as a "rant", just more of your educating people like me as to facts. Already learned here is to not combine classifications when describing opinions. A lot was learned on CPA requirements (again, as stated, I had limited knowledge on CPA'S, just from those I ran into). With what was shared and the fact that CE'S for CPA'S do require specifically ongoing tax updates /// I have added CPA'S to my " good list" like the EA'S/// the world is safer again. On attorney's there is significant knowledge on requirements and activities (predominately criminal, some civil and administrative). It even helps the point - if they have been trained in tax and ongoing updates are required (tax CE'S , etc.) the regulation might be lessoned for them from the IRS. The attorney's you mention even went for tax training and could come under the "less regulation" from IRS // BUT // still should NOT be allowed (my opinion) to be unregulated "tax wise" just because they took law training (not tax training). That is what was meant by "generalist" (here) - just because you know something - that person can automatically do unrelated things. To me, that is similar to allowing an engineer to do surgery or a drug company CEO to choose medicines for me. They all have their skills, training and such --- BUT -- those skills do not automatically transfer to "other" professions. Posts here educate (please do NOT stop - rant if needed (it opens discussions)). Sharing facts and knowledge help those willing to think, to learn more, reevaluate or reconfirm their opinions. After all, our knowledge is from those we trust (people) and there is nothing wrong with "fact checking" as people can/do pick up erroneous conceptions and "pass them on".

Agree with the EA (reason not mentioned initially (did have "etc." but did not mean EA)) having no need to be further regulated by IRS. After all, their designation is/was for taxes specifically. That is partly the point --- being a bit more specific with CPA's and a LOT MORE specific with lawyers. CPA's may initially study taxes, with attorney's having a "passing mention" of them somewhere around law school BUT neither have specific tax CE requirements (on CPA's - to my limited knowledge; with attorney's definite knowledge no tax CE's required). All are generalist (so to speak) CE requirements. ---- The point (again - from my view) is that just because one is a CPA or an attorney - does not mean they know taxes and there should be some sort of regulation; just as there definitely should be on someone like myself who is not a CPA or attorney. I do not make this comment lightly as I am a "personal responsibility" person and believe there should be less government but government with real laws (with 'real" teeth) rather than currently done. (This is not meant politically -- but if perceived that way (moderators, please remove this section of the comment if so)). By the way, attorney's (under the bar - I believe) do have an ethical section where they should NOT do something they do not know how to do. Problem(S) are that they (the attorney) get to choose what they believe they "know" and are regulated by "the bar" (other attorney's) who only act when specifically required to and know of the problem about that [particular attorney (who sues their attorney ---- really? problem is not fully publically known). The degree is a "generalist" with just like most other things, subject to additional learning, etc.. Think surgeon vs. doctor; accountant vs. CPA and so on. The additional "learning" makes the difference --- what harm in "proving/regulating" that that "learning" has been fulfilled? (and not at the clients/customers expense). The decision to REQUIRE financial advisors to act in the "best interest" of the client and not just offer/have "suitable for" clients materials, etc. was a long time coming. This is a form of good government ---- but took numerous years with many of the "advisors" fighting all the way. We ourselves may be ethical and so on BUT is everyone? (note: even with good ethics, we sometimes make bad decisions (I know from personal knowledge) That is the reason for any regulation concerning the "needs" of the public in something such as taxes, etc.. Boy, I LOVE the 'etc." , do you? Thank you for allowing me to rant --- please continue having a GREAT summer and an even better "season" in our chosen profession.

I agree with having regulations on services for preparers --- HOWEVER -- feel they should be across board without the Attorney, CPA, etc. exemptions. If tax preparation is what is being regulated, then ALL should be subject. A plumber or electrician are all professional as are doctors, etc. / but / should they do taxes, maybe not (unless schooled, etc. in taxes) ---- same as lawyers, CPA's, etc. who know (possibly) their area of law or business (but not (or even most) do actually know taxes), therefore until shown to KNOW taxes, all should adhere to regulation requirements for preparation, etc. BY the way, surprised that more states do not regulate this as it makes money, jobs for them, etc... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- following from the "tax letter' ------------------------------ Add Conn. to the small list of states that regulate unenrolled tax preparers. A new law requires that, starting in 2019, preparers who aren’t lawyers, CPAs or enrolled agents, or who don’t meet one of the other exemptions, apply for a permit from the state and pay an annual fee. And beginning in 2020, applicants for permits must provide proof of completion of IRS’s voluntary annual filing season program. The state will include the names of licensed preparers in a public directory.

I like the strawberry preserve kind from them the best ...

I agree with jlkcpa . There is a caveat here and I do not think it is political as basically it is just a general government comment. The congress (house) has a bill regulating state income taxes (taxability to people working in multiple states, etc.) which would be somewhat what congress might do by having the various states require credentialing for preparers, etc. So basically the "feds" would be telling the states how to write their tax law, etc. --- am I old fashioned but why should the feds have that power over the states IF it is the states business, etc???? The other part of credentialing (which I do think is important for our industry) is that will it actually be for the betterment of the industry and US? or just another way for the state government to raise money (fees, testing, etc.) for their own use. Again, not political, just economics as I see it.

Cannot add to tax question issues BUT do have an LLC (partnership question - or thought). Have you seen the operating agreement as many LLC's can have the right to decide if things can be "transferred" etc.? Be a shame to "figure this out" and find it takes some formalized LLC paperwork too.

All the above are good references and suggestions //// for WHEN the IRS notifies your client of reclassification. Until then, the DOL has no status for tax matters. Think of it as if a "court" had ordered something for a divorce, IRS does their own thing! Action to take is AFTER IRS notification , anything done before then will simply confuse the issue and make it take longer overall. By the way, the DOL and IRS do "talk" on matters such as employee reclassification. There is a push on by the DOL for a lot of reclassification due to their broader definition of employee vs ICC. They basically use a financial circumstances definition to ensnare more entities into employee instead of IC. Reason being (my opinion) easier to collect taxes due from employer than from multiple IT'S.

They are giving the 2016 edition to show what they are ==== however, if you want the 2017 edition, you will have to order them later ///// and of course pay for them. At least that is how I read my quote offer.

Confused !!!!! By the brochure Illmas shared, basically if I have a CA client, then I am getting money from CA and am subject to the CA tax system??????? Maybe because I am studying Catherine's links on the Constitutional things my mind has fried (not far to go normally) but is CA trying to cover everybody and everything. Predominately my clients are PA, NY, OH and Alaska. Thanks in advance for ANY clarification.

Earn CE Credits Two 75-minute Sessions Available for each topic: Session 1 – 11am ET; 10am Central; 9am Mountain; 8am Pacific; 5am Hawaii Session 2* – 2pm ET; 1pm Central; 12pm Mountain; 11am Pacific; 8am Hawaii *Closed captioning offered for Session 2 webconferences ONLY. Understanding Payment Options – Part II April 20, 2017– 11:00 a.m. Eastern Register & Attend: https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/1148/20319 April 20, 2017– 2:00 p.m. Eastern * Register & Attend: https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/1148/20320 Understanding Correspondence Examinations May 11, 2017– 11:00 a.m. Eastern Register & Attend: https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/1148/20328 May 11, 2017– 2:00 p.m. Eastern * Register & Attend: https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/1148/20330 Understanding the Automated Underreporter Program May 18, 2017– 11:00 a.m. Eastern Register & Attend: https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/1148/20335 May 18, 2017– 2:00 p.m. Eastern * Register & Attend: https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/1148/20337 Understanding Form 8300 (Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business) June 15, 2017– 11:00 a.m. Eastern Register & Attend: https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/1148/20341 June 15, 2017– 2:00 p.m. Eastern * Register & Attend: https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/1148/20342 Continuing Education All participants who qualify will receive a Certificate of Completion. Tax Professionals – Earn 1 CE Credit Category: Federal Tax Questions? Email us at: [email protected]

Terry, You are looking at that incorrectly.... Do NOT try to prove who you are NOT --- have the issuer PROVE who they gave the card/account/whatever to. If they can not prove it was you (signatures, ID required at issue, etc.), then they must remove it from your file AND do a written notification to any persons/entities/etc. who they gave bad information to. To often people "roll-over" when the onus is really on the other party. Otherwise, "they" are actually violating the different credit reporting rules and consumer protection laws. If curious, do a Google or Bing check on credit laws (treat it as if you were "collecting" liens or debts for yourself). There are a myriad of restrictions to avoid. Make the credit bureaus "play by the rules" too -- use them to your advantage. Apologies -- I do not mean to sound as if telling you what to do (Spouse I sound like that a lot) and I just reread and see the point. Just meant as hopefully a different guidance possibility.

Additional guide if you want (online or printable): Salvation Army: https://satruck.org/Home/DonationValueGuide AND --- since you enjoy (????) pencils and there humor' she can do it in pencil too!!

If you are using ATX go to the email tab, hi-light the line with the message and push ctl-R. That will open the return and you will see the "message" at the bottom of the page. These are instructions from the ATX site. It is as you were told, probably an ad for "healthcare" but you never know. There are other ways to do this and all can be found by doing a search at ATX site. If you missed originally checking the box for the above client, I would not worry about it (especially since they do have coverage). No amend. Maybe the IRS will catch it and ask, maybe not. An amended return would just complicate matters for them. Remember -- rule of thumb --- KISS, especially for government IRS.

Thanks as all dollars are offset, so nothing to line 21. You did not get it yet??? The check (to help defray costs) is/has been in the mail ...

I have one client that has a daughter-in-law living in his "old" home (paid for, etc.) that he does not take any deductions for, etc.. The however here is that the daughter-in-law gives him 5-600 each month to pay the basic utilities, insurances, property taxes, etc. (he acts as an escrow agent basically). This is about half what he could "rent" the property for but the daughter-in-law needs housing, etc.. He is not renting the property, she is paying the 'costs". Was I wrong NOT taking this as a rental and doing a sch. E?

I do not have a cite --- but --- had several similar and did each by date. Total was in excess of 6,500 and not a problem. Mine had a different facility manager sign off on each date. Given no individual items exceeded 500 there were no appraisals (mostly cloths, toys and small (current not antique) furniture). It has been three years since first one and two last year --- all (so far) no concerns or questions, etc..