Jump to content
ATX Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



  • Rank
    ATXaholics Anonymous

Profile Information

  • State

Recent Profile Visitors

4,172 profile views
  1. Here are some references you might want to look at: rev rul 72-255 rev rul 70-510 Inja Land Co... Gilbertz...
  2. I subscribe to check point learning, great webinar presenters and topics. They also have CPA ethic course for my state of Oregon.
  3. As others have posted it depends on the facts and circumstances. First you have to determine if it is actually an easement not subject to terms of reversion. An easement is considered a sale if grantor basically ends up without any rights to use the property. On the other hand, if the easement has minimal effect on the landowners use of the land, it is considered a return of capital and reduces basis. But here is the catch. In most situations, the reduction in basis only applies to the portion of the land which includes the easement. So if the easement covers one acre out of 100 acres, only the basis of one acre is reduced. Therefore the amount of payment that exceeds the basis of the land specific to the easement is gain. There are a few court cases where basis reduction was applied beyond the property that was directly effected by the easement. 1033 can apply in the case of involuntary conversion. Also in cases where replacement property is purchased due to severance damage. I reported the sale price and related basis reduction to head off an IRS letter.
  4. Are you thinking 1031's of personal property no longer allowed?
  5. That was a great organization with with outstanding people. RIP William. Thank you for the post Kerry.
  6. That is correct Judy. Section 1015 applies so basis for gain and basis for loss must be tracked separately. That task can be made simple with a spreadsheet.
  7. To clarify, the total capital gain is $3m, and of that $1m is unrecaptured section 1250 gain.
  8. It doesn't matter if a S or C corp, assignment of income still applies. Also, it does not matter what the motive is. The income is reported by the person / entity that was legally entitled to it. Unfortunately there does not appear to be a solution for your client's situation. Here is a quote from Johnson v. Commissioner, supra at 891, that addresses your questions: An examination of the case law from Lucas v. Earl hence reveals two necessary elements before the corporation, rather than its service-performer employee, may be considered the controller of the income.15 First, the service-performer employee must be just that—an employee of the corporation whom the corporation has the right to direct or control in some meaningful sense. See Vnuk v. Commissioner, 621 F.2d 1318, 1320-1321 (8th Cir. 1980), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Vercio v. Commissioner, supra. Second, there must exist between the corporation and the person or entity using the services a contract or similar indicium recognizing the corporation's controlling position. See Pacella v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 604 (1982); Keller v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1014, appeal filed (10th Cir., Apr. 2, 1982).16
  9. I have had that happen but can't remember why. Are you trying to open up in a different program year than it was created in? Maybe it had something to do with a return that was rolled over but not opened? Might of had to go back and open in previous year and then roll over again?
  10. Unless they can get a contract between the paying company and the corporation, they are out of luck. Case law is very clear when it comes to assignment of income to corporations. First of all, there must be a contract between the corporation and the payer. Secondly, there must be an employment contract which recognizes the corporation's controlling position.
  11. To be straight forward with you Edsel, if your clients truly need or want (which I cannot Imagine) financial information prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, then you need to refer them to someone who is both qualified and licensed to provide that information. GAAP is huge and encompassing. It has nothing to do with filling in a balance sheet on form 1065 or as you say "doing our job correctly". But FYI, you do not report deferred taxes for a pass through entity.
  12. The law went into effect 1/1/2009 so you do not go back further than that date.
  13. Look at it this way, you can move out of your home and rent it before you sell it with out reducing the exclusion. But, if you convert a rental to your personal residence your exclusion is reduced by the portion of time it was previously held as a rental. It actually kind of makes sense.
  14. I agree, the nonqualified use occurred after he used it as his personal residence so it meets the exception. On the other hand, if he had rented it before it became his residence that would be nonqualified use.


    Congress effectively eliminated the penalty by setting it to zero. 2017 was the only year IRS could fully enforce it. ****************************************************** Sec. 11081. ELIMINATION OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS FAILING TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. (a) IN GENERAL. Section 5000A(c) is amended— (1) IRC in paragraph (2)(B)(iii), by striking “2.5 percent” and inserting “Zero percent”, and (2) in paragraph (3)— (A) by striking “$695” in subparagraph (A) and inserting “$0”, and (B) IRC by striking subparagraph (D). (b) EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2018.
  • Create New...