zeke

ain't this fun!!!! Pacun, whom we all respect, knoiwlingly devises a scenario with minimal facts. We all take him serious and during the ensuing cat fight create what is probable the longest thread on this board! Now I know that I will not have to advise my not client that not he/she will not have to pay tax, penalties & int on not retirement income reflected on a not 1099-R. & I am still right - he did NOT receive the $200K. zeke

I agree with "old jack". The IRS may not be understand that there is a "rebuttable presumption" of "constructive receipt" - I would have greater faith in the court. zeke

"therefore he controlled the funds." my point precisely! he did NOT control the funds. He wanted to. He tried to. NOTHING shows receipt. "He cound have given another address" & Katrina could have blown the post office away, or the dog ate the mail - all irrelevant. All we know is that someone else spent his money BEFORE he got it. Thanks Jainen for your polite, well reasoned response, but feel free to "cut loose" I won't break. I have been wrong before, will again. I guess I will just have to emulate Cool Hand Luke - he couldn't get his "mind right" either.... zeke

We know the retirement office SAYS they mailed the check. We know t/p did NOT rceive the check. We know the check was deposited to another's account w/o consent of t/p. I have read and respected this board for YEARS, saying little because I don't claim to have the knowledge exhibited here, and yes, I was also "caught" on the wrong side of the post referring to the ipropriety of a negative entry on line 21. Yes, there is a smell factor and we need more info. From the facts presented so far, I would still argue that "constructive receipt" has not been shown, and if i had my choice, i would much prefer to represent t/p non-receipt issue vs IRS "constructive receipt" - and, the tax, penalties & interest from years ago on $200K is an amount worth arguing about. Now, this poor weak mind respectfully requests that Pacun, Jainen, K.C. & any others interested please comment further. I would really hope that SOMEONE/ANYONE agrees with me! zeke

just the opposite - from the facts in evidence, he never had receipt and should NOT report the income in the first place. We can conjecture additional facts that might indicate "constructive receipt", but i would expect that to be the job of the irs. Yes, I would still be looking for the $200K, & if rec'd it would be reportable in year of receipt - not year(s) ago accruing penalties & interest. and as long as i might recover, i have no loss.

if the taxpayer never got the check, then he has no income to be reported!

i have a hard time with "receipt". i do not believe he had income, therefor no need to report loss. zeke

where are you????

Sorry for the sharp (friday p.m.) response. if you can answer yes to question a on schedule I, then you should use I, otherwise I would just use B.

this here computer has more moving parts than a pencil. It is therefor smarter that me. Sorry about my "stuttered" response. Stocks & bonds are listed on Schedule "B" and (strangely) titled: Schedule B Stocks & Bonds. Please call up the form, read the schedule headings & the pertinent instructions thereto. Then ask all the questions you want! Lots of good people want to help. Z

Then again, if the gifting brother is married as well, you can give twice as much!

Now, if we can just agree on the definition of "poverty".... Zeke

yes

and the only people having the tiniest clue are those that received a refund check. All those with refund deposited automatically to bank, and those with a balance due have not the least hint! zeke