Jump to content
ATX Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Edsel

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • State

Recent Profile Visitors

1,739 profile views
  1. Thanks to all. I am admittedly using an old version (Excel 2007) For other reasons I'm going to hang on to it for as long as I can. The pop-up box reads: "A formula or sheet you want to move or copy contains the name 'Print_Area', which already exists on the destination worksheet. Do you want to use this version of the name? To use the name as defined in the destination sheet, click Yes. To rename the range referred to in the formula or worksheet, click No and enter a new name in the Name Conflict dialog box. I will also state that the "destination worksheet" would be brand new and could not possible contain the Print Area except for the fact that it must have existed on the source worksheet. Answering "Yes" stops everything, and the name is on the destination worksheet and anything further copied. Answering "No" brings up another dialogue box where you have the opportunity to rename the range. Neither option stops the range from being copied. Thanks to all who have responded. If you don't have this problem, I'm happy for you.
  2. Thanks Judy - mine has the same feature to clear, but upon copying the spreadsheet, the pop-up dialogue box still claims that I have a print range, with a "yes" or "no" and no way to win. Something I'm doing wrong, no doubt. Thanks Judy for your endless help.
  3. Not remotely related to taxes. If an Excel spreadsheet has a range(s) specified, and an attempt is made to make a copy of that spreadsheet: Pop-up messages appear and blow me out of the chair, asking me to answer "yes" or "no". A "yes" answer means the old range will appear on the new spreadsheet, and a "no" answer will require me to rename the range. In other words, no option is available to me to not have a range at all in the new spreadsheet. I am doomed to have the range on the new spreadsheet regardless of how I answer the question. I have thought of removing the range on the original spreadsheet but can't find it, and don't even know whether that would work or not. Is there a solution which would stop the range dead in its tracks from being transferred to the new spreadsheet?? This seems like an elementary question that any idiot should know, but I guess that's who you have on the forum with you.
  4. If we had a union, the first group I would exert union influence would be the IRS. For telling us we aren't expected to audit, then requiring Form 8867.
  5. Good Article. Describes the upsides and downsides of deducting interest and nullifying LTCG/QualDiv treatment. Does not discuss whether there is an election to capitalize the interest instead of deducting on 4952. As there is no known support, I can only assume this election is not available. Thanks for responding.
  6. Looks like no one who has read this has any solutions, either. Another casualty of the new tax law and higher standard deduction. Important: Is there an election option to capitalize the investment interest instead of wasting the 4852 process? This would result in adding the interest every year to the basis of the bond investment. Almost certainly would result in a loss when the bond is sold, against LTCG income. Other additions to basis would be amortization of bond discount, but this feature should not result in a loss upon disposition.
  7. A good plan. Can rent the vehicle for a little more and show a profit - and it will wash so long as the client is a 100% shareholder. Problem is, if this guy is not going to be bothered enough to change the title, will he be bothered enough to prepare a lease? Or what about an accountable plan for mileage reimbursement? Might be a good idea to give this guy an estimate of how much more in taxes he will have to pay if he's not going to do anything.
  8. Thanks for the responses. I learn something new every day.
  9. Taxpayer wants to employ grandchild who turns 18 during year. His birthday is June 1. Until June 1st he is paid $2500, and he is paid $3000 on payrolls after June 1. Which of the following are true for his W-2 wages? His Total wages are $5500, and $3000 is taxable for Social Security Wages. His Total wages are $5500, and $5500 is taxable for Social Security Wages. Turning 18 at any time during the year is construed as turning 18 on January 1 of that year for social security wage purposes. His Total wages are $5500, and $ 0 is taxable for Social Security Wages. Turning 18 at any time during the year is construed as turning 18 on January 1 of the succeeding year for social security wage purposes.
  10. C'mon Abby. Think of the consumer, who in most cases has already been ripped off once. When something is wrong, fix the whole thing, not just the scum on top of a dirty pond.
  11. Thanks for responding Gail. Under section 125, there is a rare provision that the taxpayer CAN deduct the expense, but the employee does not have to claim it as income. This is rare indeed. From what you're saying, perhaps employees covered by these "elite" plans must pay on the premiums and thus not qualify under section 125. I agree with you and this would make sense, but my association with medium-sized companies is such that they have their W-2s reduced under s. 125 nonetheless. The only exception I've seen is for a 2% shareholder of a Sub S.
  12. There are some people who are fond of investing in bonds. Bonds are paying very pitiful returns, typically less than 1.5% but are very stable investments. Municipal bonds are tax-free but pay even less. Savvy investors increase their returns by leveraging their assets with loans. Definitely increases the return, but at some point the two combined factors of interest expense plus risk establish a point of diminishing return on how much of the investment can be leveraged with loans. With the new tax law, the "investment interest" available on Form 4952 can have virtually no tax benefit, with the new standard deductions. Fewer than 8% of my clientele now file a Schedule A. This is perhaps an investment topic rather than a tax topic, but as preparers we encounter questions from clients who want to negotiate the best treatment in these days of higher standard deductions. Are there suggestions as to how to maximize the tax benefit of investment interest?
  13. It may be that no one knows why they're getting away with it. Zero replies which address the problem.
  14. The language with which we are familiar from section 125 is clear about discrimination in the provision of fringe benefits. The application of benefits can be somewhat stratified, but are not supposed to discriminate in favor of individuals. Yet companies routinely establish an elite class of benefits for executives. Sometimes the medical insurance benefits carry a separate policy which pays better and with lower co-pays. Sometimes there is no employee participation for the chosen few, whereas other employees have to pay thousands of $$ over the course of the year. Immediate matching in retirement plans such as 401k, whereas lower-paid employees have a six-month period to vest. I can go on and on. The practice is widespread among medium-size and large-size companies. And the providers of benefits push these special plans. Comments please, as to how they are getting away with this. Thanks.
  15. Keep responding Catherine. You are as gracious a member as we have, and are rarely wrong. For what it's worth, I think she's right too after reading the texts very carefully.
  • Create New...