Corduroy Frog

The Alabama resident will be in Missouri 90 days hiring and managing 30 employees until turning the management over to a local. Employer already has employees working in Missouri, but has no physical location.

An Alabama client is going to send one of their Alabama residents to Missouri for 90 days. How long can he stay in Missouri without having Missouri SIT to begin? If he has MO SIT withheld it won't affect his state taxes because he will have a credit to apply as an Alabama resident. However, there is administrative cost for the client as well as the guy will have to file a Missouri non-resident return.

I'm sure I am not. 9 years ago, somebody probably covered that in a Seminar. If you can provide a citation I will read it. Notices usually begin with the year #.

After reading the responses, and looking at the Reg, it seems like the regular monthly stipend would make this taxable. Has more to do with the periodicity than the amount. Thanks to all.

Dan this is good thinking. Fact is, however, that people would prefer using their own smart iphones than to carry around basic phones that only allow phone calls. Today's phones will take you to the moon and back, order lunch from Zaxbys, and book your next vacation in Mozambique. It would be less grief on the employer to just incur the tax than to deal with employees trying to separate the charges on an expense report. Employer could simplify things by "cloning" a monthly expense report, but that is not what an expense report is supposed to be.

A client of mine is confronted with the need to provide cellphone service for 8 employees. All of them already have cellphones. It will be cheaper to pay a stipend of $20/month directly to the employees than to furnish phones and service. The question is: This is $240 per year. Is it taxable? or does it fall into a "deminimus" category than the IRS would ignore? Asked from a different perspective: Is there a "safe harbor" dollar amount where such a stipend crosses a threshold from deminimus treatment into taxability??

Thanks Max. This is good information. I believe the person doing only EFTPS could be immune for most practical purposes. But if the IRS can't find anyone more central to management who has any money, they will go down the list until they find someone who does. Items 6 and 7 are usually synonymous. And if they had intended for #7 and #8 to be exempt, they wouldn't have put them on the list.

You shouldn't sign on the company's bank accounts because the IRS could actually hold you responsible for unpaid trust fund taxes. I borrowed the above quote from Judy on another thread, and thought this topic was significantly different - hence the new topic. I have long wondered about electronic filing with EFTPS and various state websites. States have passed laws which now require electronic filing plus a requirement to PAY electronically as well. Some states are really aggressive - won't let you file at all unless you pay simultaneously. Whoever completes the process has enjoined a withdrawal to the taxpayer's bank account, having the same effect as a check. Question: Does liability attach to the person who pays electronically? Even if that person is not a signatory to the bank account? Is it the same liability that would attach as if a paper check had been signed? Thanks in advance for responses.

Me too - got a couple. They keep wondering what is wrong. One is holding up a $7500 refund - but they did get a stimulus of $2900. I don't think they can complain about the circumstances too much if they eventually get their money.

If you go back and follow the thread, it started with a simple question - Is tax depreciation a valid election under GAAP? I would think this would be as simple as "yes" or "no" and that could have ended before the cannons came out and the discourse degenerated. We all have minimal exposure to GAAP - I have about 12 entities which require a "book" presentation on the Balance Sheet and disclosure of differences on the M-1. Most of the customers present bookkeeping and will not pay a couple thousand of dollars for a review. Crossing the line is not well-defined until representations are made to a third party.

Hi Tom - You're quite lucky - you're getting good help from CPAs who are familiar. The last time I had the unmitigated nerve to ask a GAAP question, a few outraged CPAs chastised me for entering the realm of public accounting. You would think I touched the Ark of the Covenant from the old Indiana Jones movie. But as to be expected, there were also some CPAs who were quite conciliatory. I'm surprised that an expensive CPA firm would expect the local controller to furnish "Notes." I'm sure they include "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies" and for a company your size this could be 15 pages or more. I'm also convinced your owner is not in synch with normal relations between a company and its Attest professional, as their request is not normal. I'm wondering if this condition is a trend of things to come but I doubt it. I'm wondering if their position would be different if another CPA were hired - and if a professional standard places a requirement on a successor firm to disclose why the previous firm was disposed. Judy, Margaret, and others are great help when it comes to resources and particulars, and I am not so I'll shut up. Good luck Tom, and I see where Fresno St is starting to play again.

I would also believe there would be a reporting difference based on whether the SCorp sold its assets, or whether the SCorp ownership stock were sold.

I've already filed all my 941s for clients. Used the April revision before they had a chance to revise it and mess it up even further. None of mine chose to participate in the deferral, so most of what I have are zeroes and empty numbers for Family Medical Leave, Sick Leave, and all the special features that few employers register for. I understand that after the Executive Order, all Federal Employees were defaulted into the deferral, but don't know whether they could choose to bail out. My non-political view of the deferral is that it is a very bad idea. What was unclear to me was the unclear collection responsibility of the employer if an employee quit in December. The mere mention of this to my clients pretty well scared them off.

Credit for excess FICA withheld on the employee's tax return will be launched regardless of how many W-2s or how many employers. As long as the payee on the W-2 is correct. The same employer is entitled to a break on the employers' share once the limit is reached, however they can botch this up by changing payroll in the middle of the year, multiple payroll services, etc.

Thank you my friend from Illinois.

The latest 941 form was revised in April of 2020. For a company that does not have the payroll tax deferral, would you recommend using it for the 3rd quarter?

Isn't there an option for reversing the order of when to invade the AAA? I don't have ATX but maybe this is what is happening.

Thanks for your response, DANRVAN - this is quite typical of geographical differences. In your state, you can holler down the street and 3-4 forestry experts will turn around and look at you. Down here, you won't find one except at large sawmills, and when you're getting information for the tax return, the farmer/client doesn't even know one, and even if he did he wouldn't pay for the information. The thing that keeps him from getting ripped off is his typical contract calls for 50% of the proceeds. You are much more able to find a tree-trimmer to cut dangerous trees away from your house than a trained forester. Many farmers can't even look at a tree and tell its species.

Thanks for responding DANRVAN. I don't know whether this answers all your questions or not, but to some degree this is often a "facts and circumstances" situation. It starts with the purchase of acreage, maybe 50 acres, and I'm told the intent is to put cattle on the acreage. 3-4 years later the pasture is still vacant and is being mowed. I am still told cattle will be there. I simply cannot deduct Sch F expenses in such a case. I generally tell the owner that we will begin deducting expenses when the cattle are there. I will deduct expenses with cattle even though there are no sales, because it takes several months for calving to be ready for market. Answering your question about allocation of expenses to timber, I don't know any sophisticated means of measuring growth patterns and expected board feet. If there are 20 acres of timber and 80 acres of pasture, I will allocate 20% of the taxes and interest to the timber, using acreage as an allocation base. If a farmhouse is there, there is an initial allocation of taxes based on tax appraisal, and this is true for interest if purchased all at once. Otherwise interest is traced to the purpose of the loan, and there could be multiple loans. Your home state has a multi-bilion $ timber industry, and the aforementioned sophisticated methods are more likely commonly used in Oregon.

Capitalization of Expenses? I do this for a few people - farmers in particular. Attention is drawn to the discussion about which expenses can be capitalized. From the discussion, only interest and taxes, and there is no interest. And taxes in 2018 are limited to $10,000. I approach the farmers as though the only expenses which can be capitalized are those expenses which can be deducted. Many farmers purchase vacant land and let it sit. Anyone who knows about farming knows that it cannot just "sit". It has to be mowed, fenced, and maintained, and these expenses are not as small as mowing your front lawn. So I capitalize those expenses which can be deducted on a Sch F. The acreage is available for use, and in most cases it ultimately is used for pasture in later years. Is this questionable? I still believe it is conservative because most farmers expect me to deduct it outright and claim a loss on the land. I won't do that if it is just sitting there. Moving the discussion to timber. Standing timber can never be used for farming as long as the timber is there. I capitalize interest and taxes for the timber until sold, and limit the capitalization to interest and taxes only. In the year of a sale, I deduct expenses of the sale. Typically in these parts, standing timber is left for years and years before sold, and is capital gain or loss. There are operations who harvest timber every year and this is ordinary Sch F income - farmer/clients who do this are practically non-existent - operations such as this are run by huge companies like Boise-Cascade or Champion Paper. Moderator note - the above post was moved out of the topic entitled "No BS" because that discussion is still ongoing for a specific case, and the above post may have derailed it into other areas of farming and timber.

Thank you Lion, I think you mean the W-4. And indeed this happened (in fact they've been messing with the W-4 for a couple years - actually had a version which asked how much your spouse made). No one will have their 2020 tax liability changed because the W-4 was redesigned, but somehow they might expect someone to wish executing a new W-4. Like the ancient text from the Bible "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel." All of us, including the IRS, would be better off spending time opening their mail which has been piling up. Thank you Lion and Catherine for your interest in this wacky subject. This group is wonderfully helpful.

Thanks Max. They are in fact in Pub 15-T but are double-barrelled based on something that doesn't affect their liability one whit. Gone are the days of plain English.

Thanks gang. I had heard that as soon as the executive order came out, all Federal employees automatically had the deferral but were given the opportunity to opt out. Can anyone guess what could happen if the 1st quarter rolls around and for some reason the employer is not able to collect? For example, what if the employee quits at Christmastime? Is the IRS going to program their systems to collect from him as soon as he finds another job? A really bad idear.

If an employer doesn't wish for his(her) employees to participate in this ridiculous PR tax deferral, can the employer opt out?

Good grief, Illigitimas, you've got Rita figgured out!!