DANRVAN

I think you are missing part of the equation. What was the actual amount of LTC expense reported on 2021 schedule A?

Frist you need to go back to 2021 and compute total itemized deductions less standard deduction. The 2021 tax benefit would not be greater than that amount.

On second thought, I need to retract that statement regarding taxable income and crawl into my hole for the night. Negative taxable income in the prior year would reduce the tax benefit from the deduction in the prior year. So I believe the amount recognized would be the lower of the first three items stated above; reduced by negative taxable income.

And that amount would be the lower of: -the actual deduction taken for LTC -total medical deductions below the floor -total itemized deductions less the standard deduction -taxable income

The wages he receives as a shareholder/employee do not count as gross income from farming and therefore do not count towards the special estimated tax payment rules of section 6654(i) for farmers. Even if he met the estimated tax exception for farmers, he would have to either make his estimated payment by January 15th; or file and pay by March 1st.

It appears the amount of expense claimed as a deduction in 2021 and reimbursed in 2022 needs to be claimed as income.

I don't see why not. Looks like line 1 should be negative 2,870, Then lines 2,5, and 8 should = 2,000. As those numbers should appear on the 2021 worksheet.

Most likely he has purchased capital stock in a section 521 coop. Would be treated as an investment in any case.

Hope that works out for you.

If average is $50,000 or less for 2023, 2024 and 2025 you would not need to file. Instead of practicing for a return that may or may not be filed, why not spend time instead with a 990 CPE course? I would also keep in mind the practice returns will likely become public information posted for viewing on the IRS EO lookup website.

That is one of the reason I keep most depreciation schedules on a separate program (EasyACCT) so I am not relying on ATX for permanent records.

As an extra incentive, you can inform them that if they fail to designate a "PR", the IRS can appoint one for them under reg 301.6223-1. The PR does not have to be a partner.

If you haven’t already done so, you need to inform your clients of the BBA audit rule implications. Then let them decide whether to make the election or not. Partnerships with trust as partners cannot make the election, but an election can be made if the partner is an estate of a deceased partner. I prepared a generic letter that included the following: For partnerships that elect out of the BBA audit rules, any IRS audits will be conducted at the individual partner level. Any resulting assessments will also be made at the individual partner level. If a partnership makes a valid election out, the applicable statute of limitation for assessment of tax will be determined at the partner level and is further determined separately for each partner. If the election out is not made, the applicable statute of limitation for assessment of tax is instead determined at the partnership level.

It might depend on his future intentions. Does he plan on renting out the property? Does he have any other business that will use the buildings?

"Corrupt? Incompentent? Or both?" Maybe both, be curious to see how he justifies $500 on his invoice, if he prepared the K-1 he should take responsibility for it. I agree with all of that. Also a call to TPP hotline might even solve it.

If you are going to file a final return with income under $600, then should probably go ahead and report on K-1 and show as an income distribution deduction. That will result in a complete and accurate tax return whether required to file or not.

I believe a "volunteer grant" is a donation from a company a volunteer is employed with - to a charity the employee volunteers for. The org. uses it for it's charitable purposes; it is not disbursed to the volunteer as in the case of OP.

Excess deductions on termination. The 2020 Treasury reg. made that possible after TCJA took it out. There is an allocation process to follow.

Probably not if gross less than $600. Still no need to file since gross is below $600, and net further reduced by legal and accounting fees. And most like there is not any capital losses or other tax benefits to pass through on K-1s.

As I understand OP, grant was made to a charitable org which then divided it up among the volunteers. While grant was not taxable to the org, I can’t see where the distribution of the grant to volunteers would be non-taxable if it was above and beyond a reimbursement. The IRS rules are strict in such matters. I would be curious in how the org. classified the distribution to the volunteers on form 990.

Most likely, although it could go several different directions depending on facts and circumstance as well as dollar amount. I would be curious as to how the org. reported the distribution to the volunteers; sounds like more than a matter of reimbursement of expenses. I think that would only apply if put on schedule C. Without any further information I would go with other income on 1040X.

If less than $2,400 , then not subject to SS on Schedule H. If paid $1,000 or more in any quarter, then subject to FUTA on Schedule H. W-2 should be filed regardless. If less than $2,400 and ss withheld, should consider refunding employee for fica since it was not required.

I don't think that is fair statement, but you are entitled to your opinion.

I That is what I have been saying all along.

Are you saying employee should file H and pay the FUTA, tax, which is the employer's responsibility? The exclusion does not have anything to do with FUTA, and I don't think I ever said it did. What I am saying is the employee does not have to make up for it; whether it was due on form 940 or Schedule H. The code says that wages paid to a household employee below the threshold are not subject to FICA/mc. Why should a taxpayer working as an employee with wages below the threshold pay into them by filing a schedule C?