kcjenkins

http://www.naturalnews.com/036551_how_to_stop_massacre_video.html

Yes, it is possible that they may qualify for EIC this year, just do the worksheet and be sure you have their DOB info in the return, and you should be fine. The software will apply the tests, if you answer the questions. As for the babysitting, even if it's just neighbor kids, that does not make it not a business. You do not have to advertise and be open as a daycare to call it a business. The fact that she is charging for her time is the basic element of a business. Whether they are dependant on the income is not crucial, as long as she is charging them a reasonable rate.

Yes, it goes both ways. The determination of how to catagorize the interest depends on the use of the borrowed money, not on the collateral.

http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/07/11/chevy-volt-60-day-return-makes-tax-credit-abuse-likely A very interesting question, how will you deal with it if a client of yours wants to take the credit, after they had returned the car?

The reason being that the Gordian Knot was an intricate knot tied by King Gordius of Phrygia, claimed to be impossible to untie, and cut by Alexander the Great with his sword after hearing an oracle promise that whoever could undo it would be the next ruler of Asia.

I'm totally with Joan on this one. It's highly likely that the t/p did indeed seal his fate with just such dialog. But I also agree, the point at this time is not to argue about the capitalization of the expenses, but to argue that they could then be §179'd when he put it back on the market. And that this was what he intended.

I do not disagree with a thing you said in the last post, Joan. If we had more teaching of critical thinking, our kids would not be so able to be tricked into believing the lies and half-truths they are fed every day. Not just in political ads, but in all kinds of ads. Plus at least half of all the 'news' reports we are dished up every day. And we'd all be better off for that. Indeed, often I post something a bit provocative here just to get people thinking about what they are being told. Whether I agree with the goal or not, I try to keep an open mind to the arguments, but also to look for the errors in either the conclusions, or the 'facts' presented by both sides. And often I find distortions in both sides. Plus, my father told me, and I told my boys, "never totally trust any politician, they are always trying to get an advantage for themselves." I've found that to be good advice. Even when they are trying to do good, they are still going to present only the side they want you to see. And often the good goal they show hides the bad means they want to use to attain it.

The Geography of a Woman Between 18 and 20 a woman is like Africa in the late 1800s, half discovered, half wild, naturally beautiful with fertile deltas. Between 21 and 30 a woman is like America in the mid 1900s, well developed and open to trade, especially for someone with cash. Between 31 and 35 she is like India in the early 1900s, very hot, relaxed and convinced of her own beauty. Between 36 and 40 a woman is like France in the late 1900s. Gently aging but still a warm and desirable place to visit. Between 41 and 50 she is like Yugoslavia in the early 2000s, lost the war -- haunted by past mistakes. Massive reconstruction is now necessary. Between 51 and 60, she is like Russia in the late 1900s, very wide and borders are unpatrolled. The frigid climate keeps people away. Between 61 and 70, a woman is like Mongolia in the mid 1900s, with a glorious and all conquering past but alas, no future. After 70, a woman is like Afghanistan is now: most everyone knows where it is, but no one wants to go there. The Geography of a Man Between 15 and 70 a man is like Iraq in the late 1900s -- ruled by a dick.

http://www.heritage.org/issues/taxes/taxmageddon

Love that one

Joan, I don't have actual cites, I based that comment on some of the school books some of my grandkids have used in school, and on their reports of what they were told by teachers. I know that's a small sample, but these books are ones used in schools across the country. And I wish I'd made a note of the titles and authors, but did not do that. But I can give you a few links http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Democracy_America/American_Schooling_TDF.html http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2010/12/14/anti-capitalism-school-book-in-nh-causing-uproar-jesus-christ-bashed-called-wine-guzzling-vagrant-precocious-socialist-video/ This one has some direct quotes that you might find shocking in a school book given to your kids http://ironicsurrealism.com/2011/05/12/video-shocking-excerpts-read-at-tucson-school-board-meeting-from-a-book-in-the-ethic-studies-curriculum/ I know that all teachers do not teach anti capitalism, but I also know that a lot do.

Not unless [and it seldom works] the special Farm Income Averaging Sch J works out for them. Frankly, it's one of the worst changes ever in the tax code, for farmers, that this happens fairly often. The only [very small] bright side is that they are getting a possible potential bump in their eventual SS payments, down the road.

I do not disagree with you that the small startup businesses are crucial to our growth. Indeed, most new products, even those sold by big companies, started out with some one person who had an idea, worked out how to make it into a salable product, and then sold that idea, either to the general public himself, or sold it to the big company that then manufactured and marketed it. McDonald's started out as a single hamburger joint, Dell computers started out with a single geek building computers for his friends, etc. My point was that it takes 'profit' to be able to expand a business, hire people, etc, and yet our kids are being told in most schools that profit is somehow 'unfair', 'greedy', or even 'dishonest'. If you listened to interviews with the YOUNG people in the Occupy group, most of them seemed very clear that in their minds, businesses should sell their products 'at cost', because 'corporate profits' are evil. They seemed to have no understanding at all that those evil 'shareholders' are taking money that they could use to have a higher lifestyle, and instead risking those dollars by investing, in the hope of growing them, usually for the goal of having something to live on when they get too old to work any more. If you tell those kids that much of the money invested in the stock market is from pension funds and IRAs and 401Ks, they have no idea what that even means. Explain it, and they still do not grasp the idea that old folks know that they will have high medical bills in the years when they have no earning power except from their savings, and that is why they want their investments to make a profit. By the way, the number of 'leveraged buyouts' that wipe out companies to profit the investors is much smaller than the number of equity firms who actually rescue businesses that were going under unless someone came in and changed things to make them profitable again. Sure, it looks hard when the buyers come in and fire a bunch of non-productive people, but if those people had been producing a profit, the company would not have been in trouble in the first place. And no, I don't mean all the people fired are bad workers. Some of them are great workers, trying hard, but at a job that is itself not a worthwhile job. That's one reason that a lot of fired workers become successful in their own businesses, or at their new jobs. But if a company if focused on, for example, just doing things the same way they always did them, while things have changed so much in what we do and how we do it, they are going to end up failing. Sometimes, tho, it takes new management to see what should be kept, and what should be changed or eliminated. Remember, successful equity firms are the ones who turn most of their purchases around and make them profitable, not just sell off parts.

Note the speakers at this rally........ http://www.meetup.com/Boston-Tea-Party/events/71696392/

Yes, often, especially when a client has specific 'special' circumstances, getting the auditor 'on site' can be an advantage. Had one where the client, who had a third grade education, was worth pretty big bucks, but his lifestyle was not 'normal', and I could never have explained the client to the auditor. But having her go out and actually see his two-bedroom home, which was heated with two wood-burning potbellied stoves, only, and his only vehicles were both over 10 years old, and looked it, caused her to better understand how he was able to have the income he reported, and still be able to save the money he had in the bank, I think without that visit, the audit would have lasted three times as long.

http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/finance-accounting/2012/06/27/what-farmers-need-to-know-about-audits/ I think this might be a good one to print out and give to any farming clients, if only to make them appreciate you a bit more when they think of whether they would want to go through an audit such as is described, without your guidance.

Atticus, I do think that the consumption tax would be the fairest, just as the Founding Fathers did. While it is true that the rich do not spend all their money on consumption, what they do with the rest of it is really the important part, as that is what they INVEST, creating jobs and new products for the rest of us. From the very beginning of 'civilization', when mankind figured out how to become farmers, and thus produce more than just what was needed to feed them for a day or a week, it's been the ability to have some 'extra' to save and invest that has allowed us to afford to spend time on education, art, invention, scientific experimentation, etc. It's so sad that today, our children are being taught that 'profit' is somehow bad, or at least 'uncouth' or 'vulgar'.

"This is soooo inflamatory. Whatever you might think about the adoption credit and/or the refundable portion, it wasn't easy to obtain. Every single return with this credit was audited. Not exactly a low-risk opportunity for fraud. Most preparers complained how long it took for the returns to be processed, and the extreme amount of paperwork that had to be submitted. One of my new clients claimed the credit last year (I didn't prepare it), but I did see the audit report, where for a requested credit of $909, they could not find a reciept for $59. The credit was reduced by that amount." Well, as to the adoption credit, I do agree it's hard to get. Just had a call TODAY from a client who just finally got their refund from their 2010 return with the adoption credit! Maybe, tho, it's easier for the bogus filers to fake the papers than I found it to be for legit filers to get them from the state agencies. I know we had to send the IRS the same darn forms three times before they finally accepted that they had the forms they asked for. And of course, they waited months each time before asking for them again. Thank goodness the client has been with me for years, and continued to trust me when I kept telling her that 'yes, you are entitled to this credit, and yes, we have sent them what their own forms and letters tell us we needed to send, and yes, you will eventually get your refund'. It's hard to imagine that a new client would have been nearly as trusting, even tho I showed them clearly the rules in the IRS pub, stating what documentation is needed.

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/the-5-best-tax-changes-we-won-t-see/

I accept the correction, but agree with Cat that the intolerance is in those who find that prayer extremist.

I like it.

Perfect

That was my intent, Deb.

From the instructions for Form 8941 In general, all employees who perform services for you during the tax year are taken into account in determining your FTEs, average annual wages, and premiums paid. Rules that apply to certain types of employees are discussed below. Excluded employees. The following individuals are not considered employees when you figure this credit. Hours and wages of these employees and premiums paid for them are not counted when you figure your credit. The owner of a sole proprietorship. A partner in a partnership. A shareholder who owns (after applying the section 318 constructive ownership rules) more than 2% of an S corporation. A shareholder who owns (after applying the section 318 constructive ownership rules) more than 5% of the outstanding stock or stock possessing more than 5% of the total combined voting power of all stock of a corporation that is not an S corporation. A person who owns more than 5% of the capital or profits interest in any other business that is not a corporation. Family members or a member of the household who is not a family member but qualifies as a dependent on the individual income tax return of a person listed above. Family members include a child (or descendant of a child), a sibling or step sibling, a parent (or ancestor of a parent), a step-parent, a niece or nephew, an aunt or uncle, or a son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law. A spouse is also considered a family member for this purpose. Leased employees. Do not use premiums paid by the leasing organization to figure your credit. Also, a leased employee who is not a common law employee is considered an employee for credit purposes if he or she does all the following. Provides services to you under an agreement between you and a leasing organization. Has performed services for you (or for you and a related person) substantially full time for at least 1 year. Performs services under your primary direction or control. But do not use hours, wages, or premiums paid with respect to the initial year of service on which leased employee status is based. Seasonal employees. Seasonal employees who work for you 120 or fewer days during the tax year are not considered employees in determining FTEs and average annual wages. But premiums paid on their behalf are counted in determining the amount of the credit. Seasonal workers include retail workers employed exclusively during holiday seasons.

It's the little ones that trip us up, because our heads are full of details of the complex questions!!!!