Mr. Pencil

I don't see how that could work. Doesn't the software pick up other income from line 21? The instructions say, "For Form 8615, 'unearned income' includes all taxable income other than earned income." Then for Line 1 it says, "If the child had no earned income (defined below), enter the child's adjusted gross income." And "below" in the instructions, earned income is pretty narrowly defined as Lines 7, 12, and 18 of Form 1040.

That sounds right. It wouldn't normally look like a business, and there is too much personal activity to look like an investment. So line 21 for netting sales with cost of goods sold (like feed and vet bills). Schedule A for other expenses (not to exceed income). Kiddie tax certainly, but must be reported on separate return.

It was danrvan, not me, who said there is a reference. There is some guidance in Pub 463 and elsewhere about multiple job locations, but they don't really address separate jobs as such. So I think it's reasonable to assume there is not a different rule for that. Whatever the main job location is, that's the tax home. What are the implications of that? Can a taxpayer even have a qualified home office for a second job? I'd say the same thing--a taxpayer can only have one principal place of business.

Gee, I felt that I had answered the question when the very first thing I said was, quote, "No." Apparently some readers missed it, so let me repeat my answer. No. However, on further reflection of danrvan's savvy post, I have changed a different part of my opinion. This thread has two issues. Local transportation is commute unless there is a qualified home office or other initial job site. But a person can only have one tax home. So if the weekday job involves more time and income, the weekend job might have deductible travel expenses if it requires substantial overnight or comparable rest away from the tax home of the main job.

No reason to expect cancellation of debt. FMV covered the balance due, and it was a non-recourse loan anyway. Report capital gain or loss in the ordinary way according to adjusted basis. Presumably a loss would be non-deductible unless the timeshare was being used as business or rental property at the time,

1) "Who referred you?" or 2) "I don't charge at all to review your return from last year. When can you come in?"

Even for an IRA the penalty applies on lifetime amounts over $10,000 or anyone who has owned a home in the last two years. Normally one can't withdraw anything from a 401(k) without leaving the job, but purchase of a home is allowed under "hardship" rules.

No, I don't play games like that. It's plain illegal for an EIC recipient, and in any case I will only prepare a return that completely and accurately reports taxable income to the best of my knowledge. "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge."

I don't see anything wrong with this engagement. Offer to amend the prior year and explain that you are required to tell her about potential consequences of the fraudulent return, which include criminal charges as well as additional tax, penalty and interest. Encourage her to report the preparer herself, with your help if she asks for it. Then give her an organizer and engagement letter in your professional way, and prepare the current return for your ordinary fee.

Missing numbers, so can't follow the calculation. The donation constitutes a conversion to personal use (and disposition) of FMV times aggregate percentage of business use. And the basis is likewise pro-rated and reduced by the total annual depreciation factors for the business mileage. Cars don't hold value so your gain if any is probably just depreciation recapture. Anyway, 4797 not Schedule D.

Tell them that only works when they use Free File on the IRS website www.irs.gov. All tax prep firms have to use electronic filing which matches Social Security names and numbers to employer records. But when they file directly with the IRS, it bypasses Social Security! [i think I'm supposed to put a funny face here but I don't have one on my keyboard.]

Interesting question! I wonder if Practitioner Priority can determine whether an account is flagged for offset. I know you can't fix it through IRS. You have to go to SBA, and they will probably refer you to the outsource, and they will undoubtedly just tell you to pay up. If your client wants to get tough with the partner, an attorney might secure an indemnification agreement by threatening to charge embezzlement.

Sounds more like creditor/lenders than stockholders. I would recommend talking to a lawyer before sending any letters to other investors.

It is not all that gray. Pub 463 says, "You are traveling away from home if your duties require you to be away from the general area of your tax home (defined later) substantially longer than an ordinary day's work, and you need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of your work while away from home." That's been whittled down a bit so it does not necessarily require an overnight, but it takes more than just a dinner break. There are some famous court cases about traveling nurses and airline crews--hardly anyone wins on this issue. But it remains a popular position amongst our colleagues.

Although it is not commute in the ordinary sense, it is probably not deductible travel either. Read about Tax Home in Pub 463. The basic issue is whether he has a regular or main work location. That is his tax home even if it is 400 miles away from his residence. If he doesn't have a main work location, his residence MIGHT be the tax home if he regularly works nearby, but I don't think the facts-and-circumstances rule goes so far as to allow travel for a part-time second job. That would be an interesting question to research or take to Tax Court.

Read the Instructions for Schedule D Lines 1A and 8A

Yes, in a total sale. It is a Section 1231 loss and probably has recapture of amortization. See Pub 544.

On page 2 Pub 463 says, "read this publication if you are an employee or a sole proprietor." Or just look at Schedule C, exactly where you think mileage should go. The Instructions clearly say, "commuting is travel between your home and a work location."

Please explain your definition of commuting miles. Pub 463 says, "Transportation expenses you have in going between home and a part-time job on a day off from your main job are commuting expenses. You cannot deduct them."

I did not assume that. I said that's what it sounded like, something about Part III of Form 2441. Now that you have given more information, it sounds different. Anyway, I'm obviously not in your office and don't even use the same software. So take my ideas if they are helpful, or ignore them.

No, that is not correct. Never has been. Review the requirements in Pub 587, and cite anything you find to support your opinion that his qualified home office can consist of the closet he keeps his reffing gear in.

Because that's what the law says. Start with Revenue Ruling 99-7, which has been around a good long time. And he has to keep a written record of the business purpose of each trip, but going from home to the worksite is personal commute.

No. He would have to claim a qualified home office used exclusively and regularly for the part-time job of reffing, and that seems an unlikely scenario. Maybe he could deduct mileage to games in another city or going to additional job sites. That's all.

The DCB is only related to her wages. It sounds like you are not correctly entering the data for Part III of Form 2441, which should exclude the income without generating a credit (if one child). By the way, Box 3 does NOT mean he isn't self-employed.

Probably the last thing he needs is to come up empty after 15 months! For some reason this particular auditor doesn't seem motivated by the idea of a speedy resolution. After giving the taxpayer so much opportunity to support the deductions, the auditor isn't worried about Appeals finding something he missed. So refusing to sign is an empty bluff in this case. There is no question about misinterpreting the law, just poor records, so what factual basis is there for appeal? The penalty itself can't be appealed at this point--he has to stop the auditor from imposing it. Now, there is a charmingly novel argument for reasonable cause--he never did his homework back in high school either!