kcjenkins

Yeah, it was supposed to help fund ObamaCare. Like that flood of forms was going to magically make a lot of unreported income show up! Even if that were true, which I sincerely doubt, the new bill replaces that with other revenue sources, so the nay votes were purely political, not based on any estimated 'loss of revenue'.

The true irony is that if that law had stood, the IRS could not possibly have handled the absolute FLOOD of 1099s, even if many of them were filed electronically. Look how slow they were in acking the ones we sent in this year.

I may buy a few of those to give to certain clients. Then they can buy their own after.

Generally, if she is a 'general partner' and active in the business the gains and losses would be considered SE income or loss. Does the other accountant have an email address on anything he sent her? If so, perhaps you can get an answer that way? I know I get to hating the phone this time of year, but during coffee breaks I do read email, and this site, of course. You might need to extend her, if you can not get answers, assuming the amounts are significant. You do not want to guess, because it is not always true that box 1 and box 14 are the same.

Is this a self-directed IRA? Income to an IRA should go to the trustee, it is not income to the owner of the IRA until he takes a distribution, and then it is on a 1099R.

Thanks for those links. They should prove useful to me, since I'm only a couple of hours from the Tunica casinos and even some MO riverboat casinos. I may be able to send you some sales.

The name of the bill was SMALL BUSINESS PAPERWORK MANDATE ELIMINATION ACT OF 2011 I don't mean to sound partisan, but they are ALL Democrats. Including the two leaders, Reid and Pelosi. IN THE SENATE H.R. 4 TO REPEAL THE 1099 PROVISIONS NAYs ---12 Akaka (D-HI) Durbin (D-IL) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) IN THE HOUSE NAYS ---112 Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) Karen Bass (D-CA) Xavier Becerra (D-CA) Howard Berman (D-CA) Lois Capps (D-CA) Judy Chu (D-CA) Anna Eshoo (D-CA) Sam Farr (D-CA) Bob Filner (D-CA) John Garamendi (D-CA) Michael Honda (D-CA) Barbara Lee (D-CA) Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Doris Matsui (D-CA) George Miller (D-CA) Grace Napolitano (D-CA) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) Brad Sherman (D-CA) Pete Stark (D-CA) Mike Thompson (D-CA) Maxine Waters (D-CA) Henry Waxman (D-CA) Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) Diana DeGette (D-CO) Jared Polis (D-CO) Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) John Larson (D-CT) Christopher Murphy (D-CT) Corrine Brown (D-FL) Ted Deutch (D-FL) Alcee Hastings (D-FL) Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) Frederica Wilson (D-FL) Hank Johnson (D-GA) John Lewis (D-GA) Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI) Mazie Hirono (D-HI) Danny Davis (D-IL) Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) Jesse Jackson (D-IL) Bobby Rush (D-IL) Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Andre Carson (D-IN) Cedric Richmond (D-LA) Michael Capuano (D-MA) Barney Frank (D-MA) Stephen Lynch (D-MA) Edward Markey (D-MA) Jim McGovern (D-MA) Richard Neal (D-MA) John Olver (D-MA) John Tierney (D-MA) Niki Tsongas (D-MA) Elijah Cummings (D-MD) Donna Edwards (D-MD) Steny Hoyer (D-MD) John Sarbanes (D-MD) Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Michael Michaud (D-ME) Hansen Clarke (D-MI) John Conyers (D-MI) John Dingell (D-MI) Dale Kildee (D-MI) Sander Levin (D-MI) Keith Ellison (D-MN) Betty McCollum (D-MN) William Lacy Clay (D-MO) Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Brad Miller (D-NC) Melvin Watt (D-NC) Rush Holt (D-NJ) Frank Pallone (D-NJ) Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) Donald Payne (D-NJ) Steven Rothman (D-NJ) Ben Lujan (D-NM) Gary Ackerman (D-NY) Yvette Clarke (D-NY) Joseph Crowley (D-NY) Eliot Engel (D-NY) Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) Nita Lowey (D-NY) Gregory Meeks (D-NY) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Charles Rangel (D-NY) Jose Serrano (D-NY) Paul Tonko (D-NY) Edolphus Towns (D-NY) Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Marcia Fudge (D-OH) Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) Tim Ryan (D-OH) Betty Sutton (D-OH) Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Robert Brady (D-PA) Mike Doyle (D-PA) Chaka Fattah (D-PA) Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) James Clyburn (D-SC) Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) James Moran (D-VA) Robert Scott (D-VA) Norm Dicks (D-WA) Jim McDermott (D-WA) Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) Ron Kind (D-WI) Gwen Moore (D-WI) Use the information as you choose..............

It probably is, but I would call the company HR dept and ask them. Before reaching for the vodka, please. <_<

We have to go with what we know, and if you know that they are passive members, then that is what you have. But I'd look carefully into it, because usually all LLC members are assumed to be active unless they don't participate at all. The TaxProf blog had a good piece on this: Passive Losses and LLCs/LLPs Jonathan W. Thomas (J.D. 2011, Ohio State) has published Note, Garnett and Thompson: LLC and LLP Losses No Longer Passive Per Se, 5 Entrepren. Bus. L.J. 421 (2010). Here is part of the Conclusion: Just like in § 469 and the applicable Treasury Regulations related to material participation, the term “limited partner” is not defined in § 1402(a)(13). Nevertheless, taxpayers who argue that they should be treated as “general partners” rather than “limited partners” for § 469 and passive activity loss purposes, will have to set forth a seemingly contradictory argument that they should be considered “limited partners” and not “general partners” for § 1402 and self-employment tax purposes. The Tax Court’s detailed reasoning in Garnett that members of LLCs and partners of LLPs are more akin to “general partners” than “limited partners,” combined with the Court of Federal Claim’s holding in Thompson that such members and partners are not subject to the “limited partner” restriction of § 469(h)(2), will make taxpayers’ potential contradictory arguments, for § 469(h)(2) passive activity loss purposes and § 1402 self-employment tax purposes, even more difficult.

Yes, that is what I meant, sorry if it was not clear. She can claim the credit for him, since he is her dependent.

This came up recently, Do a search for '2009 won't open' and you should find helpful info.

Uncheck it from the print menu, or if it prints without being checked, [?] either throw it out [saves time] or print to pdf, then open the pdf and delete the page, then print it [saves paper and toner].

My suggestion would be to ask the client to give you a new copy of the file, in cvs format or some other format that you can use. Why waste time trying to make it work, when they can save a new copy in seconds? Look at the options that QB has for saving files, pick the one you want, and tell the client to save it in that format, and deliver it to you.

But, to be fair, GE's was zero because they did things that the government wanted them to do, and he also could lower his taxes by doing things the government wants him to do. Charitable deductions is only one of those things, IRA are another, an HSA is another, investing in tax-exempt investments, education, etc. It is always irritating to read about a big profitable company paying no tax, but the truth is that corps do not truly pay taxes, any more than your car pays the tax your state and/or county puts on your car. PEOPLE pay taxes, it's that simple. If you put a tax on a company, the company passes it on to the customers, or to the stockholders, or some combination of the two. Usually the customers. So how efficient is it to put a tax on a company, let the company pass that tax to you, and let the government then give you back a fraction of those taxes in services, while keeping a significant part of them to pay themselves inflated salaries? Most of us would be better off with lower prices, I expect.

Sch D is the correct choice. It is not 4797 property. Although it would be nice if it was, that way can lead to a nice deduction now, followed by a big bill with penalty and interest in a couple of years. Even tho IRS often misses things, the absence of any business income reported in prior years is sure to kick out of any decent matching program at the IRS.

My link

IF HE DOES NOT SIGN THIS ONE, WE SHOULD ALL MARCH ON DC WITH PITCHFORKS, TAR, FEATHERS AND A RAIL.

OK, I will correct you on this one, Linda. They held on to it as an investment, never used it personally. When you inherit property, unless it is of an inherent personal nature, it is assumed to be 'investment property' unless it is either converted by use into personal, or by use, into rental or business property. Aunt Sue's Mink coat is inherently personal, so unless you start renting it out on a regular basis, it's personal property. But real estate is either an investment, if simply held, or personal if used as a residence, or business if rented.

He qualifies for the lifetime credit. But no on the refundable credit for him, since he is her Dependant.

The simplest way is to show it on Sch D as a no-gain, no-loss transaction. Basically, you are assigning to the easement a share of the basis equal to the amount received. This makes the IRS happy, and the client too, which is a nice thing.

Yes, that really is a nice feature, especially as all the brokerage houses now do provide downloadable reports in excel format.

The key element here is that it is the EMPLOYER who is buying these, as a necessary part of his complying with his franchise agreement. So YES, it is deductible. While if the employees bought them, they would not be, for the business it's a reasonable and necessary business expense.

I don't think so. The law allows you to count a 'contribution' as made in the prior year, if made by 4/15, but 'distributions' are counted based on the date it is actually distributed from the account.

YES, I would ask them to correct it. If the client really, really needs to get filed now, I'd show it "as if" he has already gotten the corrected 1099R, and go ahead and file. By the time the IRS matching checks kick it out for a letter, [if they ever do] the t/p should have the corrected form, or if not, you are ready to explain why you did it the way it should have been reported, and it's a 'no harm, no foul' situation.