DANRVAN

Your original post said a "few months" later; so I assumed the 90 day window of Notice 88-74 was met. If that were the case I would deduct as qualified residence interest on 1041. The estate has legal ownership and obligation; therefore entitled to the deduction for interest it paid.

Sounds like you have a plateful. Starting off with the final paycheck, in a perfect world that would have been returned. Then a new one would be issued for the net amount due to the estate or beneficiary. The gross would be reported as S.S. and MediCare wages; withholdings would be made accordingly. The final wages would not be included on line 1 of the W-2 and a 1099 misc would go to the estate / payee. At this point, I agree it would be simpler to square up on the final 1040 by backing out the final gross pay as a deduction on Schedule 1 of 1040. Then report the net on 1041. Was the sale under the ein of the estate or SS of beni's? So it sounds like the transaction was a partial sale / partial gift. I don't understand why the mortgage interest was not claimed (disregarding any limitation of itemizing). So was mom the beneficiary?

3115 is not an option in this case because it is a math or calculation error instead of an accounting method change. Keep in mind that 3115 is not a catch all for depreciation errors. If this was in fact an accounting method change instead of a calculation correction, you could waive the 2-year rule under REV PROC 2007-16 and make a 481 adjustment in year two. I just had a case where there was a greater benefit to take the adjustment in year 2 rather than to amend for year 1.

I am not following you in regards to "a reduced exclusion" since the 2 out of 5 year rule was met. If you are referring to the Nonqualified Use Ratio of 121(b)(5)(B); that would not apply here since the house was converted from personal to rental. The Nonqualified Use Ratio would only apply if the conversion was from rental to personal.

$1,734.65 by May 31. I will put it on a card and get $26 cash back.

And to be honest with you, my concern is that you might be practicing in an area beyond your qualifications if you are preparing K-1's. In the AICPA that is an ethics question.

If box 14 was blank how did you arrive at -$30,000? edited: didn't realize you were talking about the other partnership.

Why would you subject your client to $120,000 SE income from the partnership regardless of the CCA? Do you understand the basic concept of SE income from a partnership? The fact that the partner was allocated a $150,000 loss and a $120,000 GP indicate the partnership correctly allocated -$30,000. If you were to follow the CCA the negative $30,000 SE income would be suspended.

I have filed a couple with no issues.

I am not crazy at all about filing a return that is not correct in that regard either. IRS might take longer to sort it out than a paper file.

Correct, if it was a new job for an indefinite period. Sounds like that was the source of confusion.

and you pass the support test for qualifying child.

Yes, that is clearly supported by Revenue Ruling 93-86 and case law.

Revenue Ruling 83-82, 1983-1 C.B. 45, provides that, for purposes of the deduction for travel expenses under section 162 (a) (2) of the Code, if the taxpayer anticipates employment away from home to last less than 1 year, then all the facts and circumstances are considered to determine whether such employment is temporary. If the taxpayer anticipates employment to last (and it does in fact last) between 1 and 2 years, Rev. Rul. 83-82, 1983-1 C.B. 45 provides a rebuttable presumption that the employment is indefinite

Not correct, how do you support that position? Not at all, it is temporary vs. indefinite since he took the job knowing it was going to last 4 months. If on the other hand he had taken the job not knowing if it was going to last for over a year, it would be indefinite instead of temporary. There is lots of case law to back this up.

So are saying ATX (or other software) will not e-file with an attached PR certification unless you incorrectly fill out 1310? Seems like I have done this before without the 1310. I prefer not to file an incorrect 1310 and would go with paper file if no other choice. I have one to prepare soon.

It is temporary if expected to last less than one year and does in fact last than one year, per Revenue Ruling 93-86

Not in the case Tom presented. Your tax home does not change when the job meets the IRS definition of temporary.

Your post does not tell how long the job in Milwaukee was expected to last, or did in fact last. Also whether he expected to return to Chicago for employment after the Milwaukee job ended.

It is support not provided by the taxpayer. I believe once you get past the support test you follow the qualifying child rules for CTC and stimulus.

HOLDING Under section 162 (a) (2) of the Code, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, if employment away from home in a single location is realistically expected to last (and does in fact last) for 1 year or less, the employment is temporary in the absence of facts and circumstances indicating otherwise. per Revenue Ruling 93-86

It is deductible if he expected the job to last less than one year and his expectation was to return home after the job had ended. There is plenty of case law to support this.

I haven't seen that situation addressed before. I don't believe it is a transferable credit. Also not aware of any provision of tax law that would prevent carryforward by original owner.

It should not and seems like it has worked in the past. If not it is a programming error. I have one coming up and will find out.

It goes to the living sister filing the claim on 1310.