Julie

Well, if she goes from one job to the other, that would be deductible mileage....

Hmmm....I've avoided the problem by putting the house in Asset Entry. Really helps come sale time.

Forgive me for being nosy, but exactly why do you want line 21 income to show SE tax? Normally, if it's subject to SE tax, you put it on the C so the client can take his expenses.

Yes, that belongs on the estate return. The phrase you should be researching is Income in Respect of the Decedent, or IRD. That refers to all the income that comes to the deceased after the date of death. Quickfinder has a short summary on pages 15-2 and 15-3, but it's not as much as you need right now. Is there a lawyer handling the estate? Is he doing the 1041, or are you? If the lawyer is handling the 1041, you don't deal with anything that happens after the date of death. If you're supposed to be doing the 1041, you have about six months to do the research. I suggest you get help.

Looks like a 6781? "Straddles" didn't work. So why am I looking up stuff for other people at 12:15 am April 7? I have no idea. Don't want to do my own work, I guess.

As usual, you can count on me to spoil your comedy show with a straight answer. "Bump" refers to bumping something up a list. In this case, a question which was slipping down the list without having been answered yet. So a reply was posted to give the thread a later date/time stamp and keep it from disappearing. Sometimes people do this just because they want more people to read something they enjoyed reading. Someone did that with one of my posts once, long ago, and the consequences are too horrible to remember.

I usually make them as I need them, generally for stuff like stock options, tracking basis, etc. As a result, since each time I devise such a spreadsheet, it's a little different from all the others. I have not been importing worksheets, but I probably would if I saw one that was better than what I was using already.

There is an important difference between artwork donated by the artist and artwork donated by a subsequent owner. According to my Quickfinder (p5-14), property that would generate ordinary income when sold can only get a deduction of basis. Property that would generate capital gain when sold would permit a deduction of FMV. This is discussed on p 11 of pub 526. So, you buy a painting in a gallery for $1200. In a few years it may be worth $5000, and then you can donate it and claim the $5000 deduction (with appraisal, of course). But in the case of a professional artist donating his own work, it is inventory in his business, and because he was permitted to expense his paint and canvas, probably has no basis at all. Beyond that, artwork by living artists has a wildly variable value. Artists are notoriously bad salesmen, and would much rather make art than sell it. So getting rid of excess inventory is a common problem. (Having been married to an artist for nearly 20 years, I know this firsthand.) Example: "Color Study A" and "Color Study B" are similar paintings hanging in a gallery, both priced at $1200. Color Study A sells at that price, and the artist pockets his $720 (after the gallery commission). Color Study B does not sell at all, and is subesquently donated to a local charity. In 50 years, after the artist is dead, it may become very valuable, but at the time of the donation, it is essentially worthless, given away because it could not be sold. Even though it's similar to a painting that sold for $1200. For the purposes of the public television auction (the usual recipient of such donations in my city), the value will be stated at $1200. But to the artist, fond as he may be of the piece, it's old inventory which needs to be cleared out so he can get back to his studio and make some more art. And the basis has already been written off. As for the original question, I would like to see the bill in question. I hadn't heard about it and would like to know more.

Thanks for the compliment, Tom. I don't think it's always true that women express their feelings better, but I appreciate your kind words. Usually when I write like that someone gets angry with me for it. I've gotten used to being the only one who feels as I do. But in this case, I think we've all been angry with CCH at some time in the past year. -Julie

Why do we have to log in to read the knowledge base now?

I have used Saber/ATX since I went out on my own in 2000. I have not used any other software since I left HRB that year. I've up-and down-graded several times in that time. Most of those years, I have taken the discount. Not last year. Maybe never again. Of course I'm content with the product...if I wasn't, I would have left long ago. And I can generally figure out what I want to know by searching the knowledge base, or going to this community, so tech support is actually a minor issue. (And I have not had the problems some of you have had with tech support, so that hasn't been an issue for me anyway.) I don't want to have to learn another software package. I don't want to spend my summer shopping around for software, either. But it comes down to this: I can buy supplies anywhere, and not really care who sold them to me. But my tax software vendor is almost a partner, someone whom I rely upon every day to make sure that my business can operate. So it matters to me that the company I'm dealing with actually cares. That if I have a problem, someone will fix it, or at least explain the workaround. Not brush off or ignore my concerns. That I can trust them to do the right thing and be there for me next year. I do not like wondering, year after year, whether anyone will answer my phone calls or emails, or if my software is going to be there at all next year. (Because of the time difference, email has always worked better for me. It doesn't seem that email queries are answered any more? The last few times I've had to call.) In short, I love ATX software, but my confidence has been shaken, and if at all possible, I plan to demo a few other packages this summer. (I also plan to move my office, so time, money and stress will be an issue.) And, yes, I'm very interested to see what Mel comes up with. I may yet renew with ATX, but now they have to prove themselves to me, and the hurdle is a bit higher than it used to be.

I spent much of last year working for a CPA who did them routinely, and sent them in immediately and used them mostly to get transcripts from IRS online. This is very useful in the fall, when clients have already lost much of the information they should have brought you but didn't. Myself, I ask for them only if a) I have reason to think the information is incomplete, and I want the transcript or if I have reason to expect IRS to have inquiries about that particular return. In which case I send them in immediately so that I receive copies of any IRS correspondence before the client gets the letter and panics.

If you catch it immediately, you can sometimes stop it by refiling it. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. If they go in the same drain, they'll both be rejected. If you don't notice for a few hours, you're out of luck.

Yes, they believe exactly what they want to believe. (Ever argue with anyone about religion? Don't. No matter which side you're on.) And they hear exactly what they want to hear. So they will swear you told them that whatever it was is not taxable....even if you told them the exact opposite, or never even knew about their situation.

Congratulations. Hope everything works out according to your happiest fantasies.

Of course you can put down as many trades as there happen to be. Why do you think there's a continuation page for the D?

Correct.

I sign mine when I get them back.

Look at the checkboxes on the left...is it set to hide completed returns?

I haven't done one of these, but it looks like maybe you're telling it the taxes have already been paid.

Thanks. I'd missed that.

Yep.

Glad I don't have any corps. Nice quiet day spent finishing up a past-year 1040 mess. quote name='JohnH' date='Mar 11 2008, 06:56 PM' post='13129'] I've spent most of the day finalizing corporation extensions.

Yes....I often phrase it a bit more simply: To take the deduction, you must OWE the money, and you must PAY the money. It's common for the person with the better credit to be listed first on the mortgage papers, and the bank will often issue the 1098 in that person's name alone. A co-borrower, though, owes the money as much as the primary borrower does, and if he pays the mortgage, he gets the deduction. By the same token, the person who gets the 1098 may not be entitled to the deduction, because he didn't make the payments.

I know I asked for that wording change some years ago. Certainly I got tired of editing the letters....when it was impossible (illegal!) for me to file the return before they received their return. And I'm glad that "reject" is not really a reject. I know I did not send the return I have one on now...it's not finished, and I "created" the efile solely to check for errors.