Corduroy Frog

And your doctor recommends you to another specialist. Let's say your primary doctor recommends you to a dermatologist. Now you have to fill out and answer the same questions over and over again - same information that your primary doctor has. They can't or won't share information - "privacy" they call it. A year later you go back to the same dermatologist -same questions over and over again.

Judy's experience is exactly what I'm talking about and how we can turn this around. One thing is for sure - we're dealing with corporate America, because when the big fish swallow the little fish the problem gets worse. If and when these facilities figure out that they are losing more revenue than the cost of answering the phone, things will change.

Judy is right - because I talked to Drake again today. If that QR code is supposed to take you to a website, why can't Drake simply supply a link to that website? I don't have any information on my cellphone that pertains to taxes, nor do I want any. I'm assuming an MFA - results in sending a six-digit code before electronic filing can be completed. Hence, another level of security. Those weird QR thingees are everywhere - growing like a fungus. For what it's worth - Drake and I are still at an impasse.

No one answers the phone anymore. I'm assuming it's not just me, and not just Tennessee, but everywhere. The obvious answer - corporate America does not want to pay receptionists. That occupation has as much future as the blacksmith at the livery station. Their solution is the [endless] telephone menu - if you are calling your doctor, there is for shore no answer and the first on the telephone menu - "If this is an emergency, please hang up and dial 9-1-1." I'm sick of spending 10 seconds listening to that one while I am desperate to talk to someone. Even our clients. It should not require more time to contact them or chase them down on the phone than to do their tax work. One of mine was so bad I charged a PITA fee. Another one doesn't know they have an $800 refund on an amended return and won't return my phone calls. And yes, the phone calls I do get are robocalls. I think the Federal Trade Commission could track down these cretins and prosecute them. E-mails are a good alternative, but people are giving up on them nowadays because of all the spam. So I ask this board - "Any effective methods to solve these problems?"

Christian, only you and your farmer can decide whether to continue reporting farm operations or not. But as for stopping depreciation? I would keep a list of such equipment (plus land and timber) at remaining value. This give you a basis on all items, and information to report on a 4797 in the event of disposal. Remember also, breeding cattle and bulls are 4797 items too, because they are depreciable. Your list should also include original value as well as undepreciated value. This will prove incredibly valuable for beneficiaries in the event the taxpayer is deceased. The market will almost always support original cost of farm equipment unless it is obsolete or in bad condition.

And no, I didn't mean to say "WASP"... But all of you know what I'm talking about anyway. The increasing talents of the identity theft pirates mean that we must jump through more hoops every year to protect ourselves (and clients) from identity theft. This year we were supposed to have a "WiSP" Written Information Security Plan. I drafted a WISP from my seminar materials. I counted on Drake to provide the machinery necessary to bring about my WISP. When I contacted them, they showed me one of those weird rectangles with all those tiny dots. My daughter calls it a "QR" or something like that. I objected to Drake, as I don't want to deal with something that I don't what is doing, and apparently this thing is supposed to suck personal data from my cell phone, which has absolutely no tax information stored in it anywhere. I asked Drake for an alternate method and they said absolutely not. And of course, they are billing for renewal with an 8% increase. And no effective response for my WISP. I feel out of touch with this whole scenario, and I'm sure there are those among you who will chime in and agree. Why can't we concentrate on becoming better tax preparers and not have to become I.T. people? For what it's worth, I also subscribe to the Elon Musk belief that we are in danger of A.I. running our entire economy and taking personal decisions from us. This post may invoke all manner of comments. I didn't engineer it that way, at least not on purpose.

In the days before LLCs became the darling of corporate attorneys, many corporations, even small ones, were chartered in Delaware. Attorneys were saying there were liability advantages in Delaware for corporations. From what I could see, there were no obvious tax reasons to do so. I had a couple small corporations that I filed Delaware corporate returns. As chartered in Delaware, they could not be "foreign" corporations. But when I completed the schedule for state allocations, Delaware didn't even receive any taxes. Not even a minimum. Nowadays LLCs are so much in vogue that a new "traditional" corporation is rare. Beware, in Tennessee, an LLC is taxed as a corporation, whereas a simple proprietorship has no taxes. And the TN dept of revenue is notified from our Secretary of State whenever an LLC is created.

The bank or credit union has the option of doing so. If this had happened to me at my credit union, they would have automatically covered from savings. Ironically enough, "Bob" has the same credit union that I have. Go figure.

Yes, I've concluded about that case after several great comments. However, I'll bet almost ALL of you have men (mostly) who have spent huge money on a Honking new truck, and then drag into your office expecting the IRS to pay for the thing. They are crestfallen when told they can take only minimal depreciation and even then have to support the deduction with mileage records. What's worse, if they choose "actual" expenses, they are stuck with it for the life of the truck. They cannot switch to the mileage method in future years, when "actual" expenses will be less.

Neighboring states want to maximize their revenue by whatever means are necessary. Some are downright ugly - NY doesn't like NJ, dating back to the Giants playing in the Meadowlands. Rhode Island refers to their neighbor as "Taxachusetts", but the folks in Boston says Rhode Island taxes are even worse. Three states are on the DelMarva so I dunno what they do. Where I live has no income tax, but all 8 of our neighbors have them, so I have occasion to do many states from time to time. Assume Megamanufacturing is headquartered in California, and one of their factories is in Missouri. The factory workers in Missouri don't have California taxes. However one of the employees in MO is working from home. This could be "California Source Income" thus is subject to California taxes. But neither this work-from-home person nor the factory workers have an office in California, other than the home office. So what's the difference?? [For these purposes, ignore "credit for taxes paid to another state" or "states with no income tax". This is another discussion]. Is there any consistence between these states? For example, Michigan has no reciprocity with Indiana, but has reciprocity with Kentucky, which doesn't even border Michigan. Has the Supreme Court ever got involved to assure consistent treatment? Probably not, although they did reverse themselves on sales tax charged out-of-state. Do any of the board members have feelings on this, or are any of you aware of any legislation anywhere that can break the Gordian Knot?

Thanks Lion. I have provided him with the Direct Pay website. I hope he knows how to use it.

I arranged for "Bob" to pay his tax liability ($3000) with a bank draft to occur on 04/15. Didn't happen. Bob says all that happened was a $30 charge from the credit union for a disallowed check. Here's why (I think). On such planned withdrawals, Drakes asks us to designate "checking" or "savings." I indicated checking, as the taxpayer did not indicate any other preference. "Bob" says he put $3000 in savings for the IRS to take. When confronted with a draft, most banks/creditunions will transfer the money to checking so long as there are funds in savings to cover. This credit union did not. These are the facts. My question now is "What should the taxpayer do to pay the IRS?" Will there be a collection letter forthcoming? Will the IRS try again? If so, when?? "Bob" is waiting for me to tell him what to do. To be honest, I don't know.

Not entirely averse to your message from Ohio - large farms in the midwest. I do have a few farmers with $2 million in equipment and annual repair costs that are huge. These guys have to have $150,000 in annual revenue just to break even. Ohio is perhaps the easternmost area of the "farm belt" extending from there to the Dakotas with huge farms. A "large farm" in the Southeast can be 100 acres. The Ford F450 I wouldn't allow was on a "farm" of 32 acres, with the owner having a full time job.

Over-the-road perhaps. I walked away from a Ford F450 six-passenger which cost $109,000 brand new in 2024. "Farm use only" does not imply interstate driving, although it could conceivably happen. I'm not hand-picking the following just to prove a point. It is a random sample of "Farm use only" Trucks 1984 1 ton Chevy Truck (bought 1993 for $4800) 9 years old when bought 1970 1 ton Chevy Pickup (bought 1982 for $2300) 12 years old when bought 1984 3/4 T Chevy Pickup (bought 1992 for $4200) 8 years old when bought 1993 Chevy 1/2 T Van (bought 2004 for $3300) 11 years old when bought 1992 Dodge Ram pickup (bought 2013 for $800) 21 years old when bought An "extravagant" farm truck: 1993 Ford 4X4 (bought 1999 for $10,800), but a 4X4 is understandable. There are several more but they are of similar ilk.

Form 8594 is the brainchild of the IRS, for purposes of assigning dollars to Goodwill, which is amortized over eons of time. It's anyone's guess as to how accurate the buyers/sellers could be. (Not very) Most sales occur before the parties even know an 8594 should be filed, and the tax preparer rarely can see that this is done.

Engineers know more about anything than anybody about any subject. Some of the worst returns I've had to clean up have been self-prepared by Engineers who knew everything.

I thought it was so preposterous I didn't even go into the other methods. There has to be concern as to whether such an expense is ordinary/necessary, and also whether we are being told the truth.

Yes, we all are amazed when we think we hear the "grand champion" idiocy from our clients. I've got to think hard to wonder if I've heard anything like this before... Client has a farm - has had for a few years. So this year he buys a 2024 FORD F450 truck. (Those of you who know anything about trucks know what a beast and expensive this thing is). Drives it 4000 miles for Farm Use only. This is not a 1975 Ford F150, or a hay truck with a long bed. It is a Ford F450. Brand new. Didn't keep a log because he thought Farm Use only means that he didn't have to keep one. Needless to say, I told him to take his taxes somewhere else.

Done all the research I'm going to - it was a Magic Carpet ride. Several companies have been involved since 2001: Westrock RockTenn Mead/Westvaco Mead Corporate Westvaco Smurfit/Westrock Sold for $51/share, and Schwab reported basis of $5.17. I began my research because I thought Schwab's basis was ridiculously low. However, reading about these old companies in Wikipedia, some sales statistics were discussed, and most of the predecessor companies had sales which increased exponentially, so the Schwab basis of $5.17 doesn't seem so low anymore. The 2024 sale to Smurfit was a 1:1 stock exchange with some $6,200 in cash. I believe I can report LTCG income as $6,200 and add it to the new Smurfit basis which is still ridiculously low. Taxpayer and spouse is 79 years old, and if left to their son, the historical mess will disappear. Thanks to all for comments and assistance.

This is the wrong way to accomplish the goal of getting rid of illegal immigrants. And unfortunately this crosses the line into politics.

Thanks to all - the help is coming in faster than I can research. By the way, there is absolutely NO WAY I'm going to report zero as basis.

Judy - you finally found it!! I don't have any of those boxes marked, and I should have marked the "Active" box. My mistake (as predicted) and not Drake. Thanks for the time you spent on this and being tough enough to see it through.

Thanks jkl and PencilGuy. I will use the information you have provided to research.

Pencil, I agree with everything you've said, but Drake is allowing a rental loss with a huge income. Judy thanks for your involvement. I'm going to move on, because this thing is taking effort away from other clients at this late date.

The "type" of partner is "Individual" answered on the K-1 , question I1. Box D refers to a publicly traded partnership, and is not checked. Box B for "other passive" is not checked, because this is active participation. However, you may have found something. "Active participation" may be an antithesis if the loss is coming from a K-1 partnership. Seems to be quite a stretch of the imagination, but maybe.... If this were really "passive" there is no doubt Drake would disallow it. I believe Drake should disallow it because of the high income, not because it is passive.