kcjenkins

Tom, let JB guide you through it, OHIO is a crazy state, more local tax returns than the rest of the country combined!!!! LOL

ATD..At The Doctors. BFF..Best Friend Fell. BTW..Bring the Wheelchair. BYOT..Bring Your Own Teeth. FWIW..Forgot Where I Was. GGPBL..Gotta Go Pacemaker Battery Low. GHA..Got Heartburn Again. IMHO..Is My Hearing-Aid On. LMDO..Laughing My Dentures Out. OMMR..On My Massage Recliner. OMSG ..Oh My! Sorry, Gas. ROFLACGU....Rolling On Floor Laughing And Can't Get Up. TTYL..Talk To You Louder

Jim, you can not use the D because it is not deductible as a 'loss'. But you can put the 1099 on Line 21, then down at the bottom, in the blue lines, just put a simple explanation like 'reduction in reported value of prize based on actual sale' and put the difference in as a negative. I've done that several times and never had a problem with it. Keep copies of the sales docs in your files, and you will probably never be asked to see them.

Given how cheap flash drives are today, it makes good sense to have at least 3 or more, and back up to them in rotation, every night when you shut down the program. You will sleep a lot better! Of course, you take them home with you, and drop them into your small inexpensive fireproof lock box, each night.

I depreciate breeding stock, because that is the proper way to treat them, but in a case where it had not been depreciated, you can simply report the sale on Line 1 of the F, and the cost on Line 2, and you are good to go. That is taking the position that the stock was bought to raise and sell. Or if you think they really should have been depreciated, as they were used as breeding stock, you can take the depreciation on a 3115, if you really want a hard way to get the same result.

OK, so let's not fight over this, given that none of us know enough details to decide the question, and we have clearly illuminated the issues to be considered by David when he does the returns. He will know the actual facts that will determine the outcome.

Right, Bill, I should have made that clear. You use the Sch A medical part to calculate how much 'would be allowed' and that amount escapes the penalty, even if you do not in fact itemize. I always print and keep that Sch A calculation in my file, if we do not itemize.

It's been a while since philosophy class. Let's see if I have this right... First there is Shakespeare, from Hamlet "to be or not to be, that is the question" Next Sartre, who said "to do is to be" All of which is summarized by Sinatra with the immortal "Do be do be do"

Sounds like you have it covered.

No, the exceptions codes and form 5239 are for exactly that situation. The payer does not know the details, and does not need to know them. They just report the distribution. You then use the 5239 to explain any exceptions. Just remember that the medical exception is a bit nasty, it is ONLY for the amount that is properly claimed on the Sch A, after the 7.5% limitation. Be prepared with a printout of those rules, as most clients assume that all amounts used for medical bills are exempt.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

http://www.nacac.org/postadopt/taxcredit.html "Because you do not need to document expenses for children with special needs, simply enter $13,170 for 2010 as long as your child receives adoption assistance. [Although 2010 instructions haven’t yet been issued, the 2009 IRS instructions related to special needs adoption state: “If you did not claim any adoption credit for the child in a prior year, enter $12,150 on line 5 even if your qualified adoption expenses for the child were less than $12,150 (and even if you did not have any qualified adoption expenses for this child).”]"

Just because she got paid does not change the fact that what she sold was an easement, and that allows for special treatment of the sale. She could report it on Sch D as a sale, if for some strange reason she wanted to pay tax on it now. But she could instead just reduce the basis by the amount of the easement payment. No taxable event this year. Especially if this is her home, which if/when she sells it, she can exclude gain on it, lowering basis is a smart choice. Pub 551 has a good explanation of basis and the effect of granting an easement.

SB 86 was signed into law today. Net result, the financial institutions will be required to match names and id numbers of delinquent taxpayers provided by FTB to names and id numbers of accountholders. Financial institutions must report names,id numbers, address, codepositors, etc. to FTB quarterly beginning 4.01.12. Not quite a John Doe search warrant, but close. Institutional trustees may need to run match list check against names and id's of trust beneficiaries. For more detailed discussion see the blog at http://www.taxattorneycalifornia.net/bank-secrecy-may-be-dead-in-california/ __._,_.___

I agree, he's going to have CA income, in fact he should have CO tax on it too, but that will be allowed as a credit on the CA return. I'd not waste time on trying to argue it for a part of the year, when his wife was still living there in their home, etc. Just have him get things corrected for 2011, and look at the bright side, you get a better fee this year!!!

Federal and state term limits, yes, would be good. As a Constitutional Amendment,so they can't easily change it. I'd add, tho, another Constitutional Amendment to require a balanced budget, at the federal level. And no setting aside gazillions of things as 'Off-budget', either. Give them only three years to phase it in, so that they have to use an axe, or maybe a chainsaw, on the size of the government to meet the limits. IT would hurt for a few years, but everyone would adapt to not being able to look to D C for everything. AR is one of the very few states that actually has a budget surplus this year. Why? Because our state Constitution does require balanced budgets. When the lawmakers spend money in Little Rock, they have to set up classifications, A projects get funded first, B projects next, IF THERE IS MONEY FOR THEM, C projects only after the A and B have been paid for, and D only if a miracle comes to pass!!! It works, folks. Just like we do in our own homes, they pay the most important things first, then on down the line, and our kids don't get billed for excessive spending done now.

It's really not that hard, I make mistakes all the time, just not usually too often about tax law! LOL Still, you are right on this one, I was overlooking the divorce angle, just not thinking it through. Still, if it gives you a 'frabjous' day, it's worth it!!!

No, the gain is long term on her half, short-term on his, another good reason for keeping the two as separate assets.

I do not see a problem when they come in together, and they both tell the same story. You are not 'giving' one of them the deduction to the disadvantage of the other, you are simply putting it where it should go, based on the total picture. I usually agree with Jainen, but not on this one. And a notorized letter from the person she cleans for will be fine for documenting the income. At least as good as a 1099. I see no reason not to do the amendment.

First, I would move DST back until after the 15th of April, to give us back that much needed hour! The rest of my changes will have to wait until after 4/18, don't have time to think them through now. :spaz:

The following was posted on another listserve and I thought I would post it here, as well. I have not looked myself so only provide this for consideration. The IRS has taken the Form 709 instructions back off their website. Since the major change in the instructions was the re-computation of the applicable credit amount used in prior years, perhaps there is a problem.

She could do that, but that was not the question. The question dealt with paying her a salary as household help. And as the mother lives in the daughter's house, treating her as self-employed could run into problems for the daughter. It's really not worth it, IMHO, to try to beat the tax laws over a few quarters of SS earnings. Why not just pay her, and let Mom put the money into an IRA?

Yes, you are right. If it was part of the divorce settlement her basis would be his old basis. Isn't it crazy how long these situations can drag on before they finally settle everything?!

Why not just enter the date of the original purchase, since the timing is not an issue anyway? Then it will efile just fine, and should it be looked at, will most certainly not generate any notices.

Two things come to mind. One is that people often claim 'my preparer deducted ____] when in fact the preparer did not actually deduct it, just did not make an issue of it. I've done that a time or two myself. Second, while the situation may seem the same, the other person's kid might have made less than $3650. And thus be a qualifying relative. Either way, showing them the example in the Pub will usually shut them up. If not, better to give them their papers and show them the door. Because you know when the excrement hits the oscillating blades, they are going to blame you.