Jump to content
ATX Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DANRVAN

  1. If it was only that easy! Actually the year of donation deduction is the dollar amount of the initial contribution less the present value of the annuity distributions back to the donor based on life expectancy.
  2. That does not appear to be a limitation by the IRS per the memo in regards to reimbursements.
  3. Notice 2011-72 _ResourcesAndTools_hr-topics_compensation_Documents_sbse-04-0911-083 (1).pdf The notice is 2011-72 and the memo is attached as pdf above. The memo directs examiners to follow the same business use criteria of employer provided cell phone (per the notice 2011-72) in situations involving reimbursements to employee's for business use of personal cell phones. The memo states that the reimbursement for business use should be done in a reasonable manner. Given all the potential business applications of a cell phone, $20 sounds reasonable based on fact a
  4. So you are not aware of the 2011 IRS Notice that pertains to employer provided cell phones and the related IRS memo that extends business use provisions of the notice to reimbursements of employee cell phones? I do not have time to post details now.
  5. Suggest you review Reg. Section 1.132-6(b) and note reference to frequency.
  6. Assuming this is an ordinary and necessary business expense, why would you not recommend treating as a reimbursement under an accountable plan?
  7. Isn't that a 4 day window to resubmit a rejected e-filed return, Oct 19 2020 for this year?
  8. Actually you were leading this discussion down the path to a 382 limitation. Hence my abrupt heading out the door to go build fence reply. A 50% change in ownership of a loss C-corp will kick in a section 382 limitation. The 50% change can come from 1 or more shareholders who ends up owning 5% or more. For example in the post by ILLMAS, if a single buyer purchases 50% or more of the stock section 382 kicks in. Also if 10 buyers purchase 5% each, then 382 kicks in since 50% changed in the hands of a group that ended up owning 5% of more. But if 25 buyers each
  9. The tax attributes stay 100% with the C-corp unless you are dealing with a section 382 or 383 transaction.
  10. I didn't catch that. In this case, the 100% of depreciations goes to beneficiaries since 100% of the TIA was distributed to them per the reg. Rev. Rul. 74-530, 1974-2 CB 188 confirms that they are allowed depreciation in excess of their K-1 reported income.
  11. If the trust did not have any Trust Accounting Income, then there would be no reporting of depreciation as a separately stated item to the the beneficiaries per Reg 1.167(h)-1(b).
  12. I will send that link to my client, Thank you!
  13. Sounds like good route to go. Probably need to find out the minimum requirements to run QB.
  14. Thank you for the suggestion Gail, but not an alternative in this situation.
  15. Does anyone have suggestions for an economical laptop capable of running quickbooks? Client is struggling with a barber shop hit by pandemic and some other issues. Thank you for any suggestions you might have. Dan
  16. that's it, the step-transaction-doctrine
  17. That is correct, I was thinking roughly 22,000 instead of 12,000 as I posted above. There are other possible methods of allocating such as sales or volume per store.
  18. Are you aware of the "substance-over-form doctrine"? Why would you not use it to your client's advantage? Looks to me like you would have a gain of about $12,000 if basis is allocated on 30,000 / 130,000 figures.
  19. Look at the substance of the transaction. The bakery reduced taxpayers route by a few stores and compensated him $30,000. That is how I would treat it. They went through some extra hoops to get there for legal/admin purposes, but they still have the route minus a few stores + a check for $30,000.
  20. Not knowing the facts and circumstances, I would inquire as to the business purpose in order to justify the expense. Are they holding as a reserve for drought years? Future expansion? An adjoining piece of property bought to avoid new neighbor conflicts ( encroachment of non-farmers) ? In my area there is a high demand for pasture so capitalizing idle ground is not a concern. Mowing unused pasture is unheard of and in most cases not practical due to the terrain and acres involved. I don't believe that is an accurate allocation method. The 20 acres in your example has two com
  21. If those are Schedule F expenses allowable under section 163, then why would you capitalize instead of taking the deduction to maximize the tax benefit to your client? The 266 election is for allowable expenses, so they should be deducted if that is to the advantage of your client. If this is an isolated parcel which farmer is holding strictly as an investments, then the expenses would fall under section 212 otherwise deductible as misc on Sched A, subject to TCJA. What reasonable method do you use to allocate those cost? You would have to allocate by the amount of standing b
  22. From what I have read it is going to fall on the shoulders of the employer regardless.

    No BS

    While the property fell victim to TCJA for carrying charges, any expenses in 2019 related to the sale can be added to basis.

    No BS

    That would be the case in tax years beginning after 2017 thanks to TCJA. Prior to that, expenses that are ordinary and necessary to maintain the investment property under section 212 can be capitalized through a section 266 election. I believe that would include insurance, utilities, lawn maintenance....etc. and since it was incurred for the management, conservation or maintenance of the investment property, it is a section 212 expense eligible for the 266 election. The basics of the 266 election in this case are to capitalize expenses that would otherwise be deductible
  • Create New...