kcjenkins

BTW, it's just inviting an audit, to have no salary for a shareholder who gets any other income from the business, you know.

My husband and I worked together from 1977 until he had his stroke 2½ yrs ago. I miss his input every single day! Love and money worked just fine for us.

It does seem to be the ones you baby the most who respect you the least, doesn't it? Perhaps you might say "Sorry Joe, but I feel you do not respect me and the value of my services, when you delay paying me but expect me to be there anytime you want to talk to me. Perhaps you would be happier with someone else doing your work." That will either get rid of an aggravating client, freeing time for a better one, or shake him up and make him adjust his attitude. Either way you win. Believe me, one client like that can add a lot of stress. And this time of year especially, it is totally unfair for any client to expect you to jump to fit HIS schedule. Fire him, or increase his fee A LOT.

For anyone who missed it, here's that announcement he's referring to. IRS Nationwide Tax Forums is now open for registration! Join tax professionals from across the country for three days of the latest tax law information, hands-on workshops, and exhibits of the newest products and services. The IRS Nationwide Tax Forums will visit the following cities: Atlanta, Orlando, Dallas, San Jose, Las Vegas, and the Washington, DC area. Take advantage of this great opportunity to receive up to 18 CPE credits, network with your peers, learn from subject matter experts from the Service as well as from our national association partners, or receive assistance on your most difficult case on site. For more information or to register, please visit the IRS Nationwide Tax Forum web site. http://www.irstaxforum.com/index

Which state, Ken? Based on what the state help desk told you, it was THEIR problem, not yours and not ATX's. These things do happen now and then, but not often. I bet you never have it happen again. You have not had problems any other day, have you?

If they are not a 'repair' but significantly improve the property or significantly extend the life of the property, then it's 29½. But I'd think carefully about whether they are just a repair.

It is not a federal REQUIREMENT yet, although it is in CA and a few other states. And I think it will be a federal one soon, just not this year. That is why it's not automatic, is my guess.

You will want to know about Google Scholar. http://scholar.google.com/ With this free tool, you can search federal and state cases, both published and unpublished. The opinions are even paginated to the official reporters. It's simply amazing. West and Lexis must be tres uncomfortable with this development. check it out, I tried it marking "Legal opinions and Journals" and entering 'IRS expense Roof Repairs' in the search box. Got 237 results. Some of them are not relevant, but there were wonderful cites of cases, You can not only open any case in a new tab, when you click on the 'how cited' button it will show you every case where that case was cited in another opinion. This is a FANTASTIC TOOL. Check it out, bookmark it, and research takes on an entire new meaning.

Old fashioned but effective for that is Vicks Vapor Rub on your chest. A real romance killer, but you don't feel like romance anyway when you can't breath, right? A humidifier can help too. But the Vicks is amazingly helpful, with no weirdness involved at all.

I don't understand why it is flowing to Line 7. It should flow to Line 16a?

This whole credit thing is an example of the need for Congress, the Administration and the public to stop using the tax law for their stimulus programs. Given the huge dollars involved in the credit,and its goal to spur home purchases (so people most benefit by getting the funds at time of purchase), it should have been done as a grant by HUD, for example. HUD could have verified eligibility during the loan approval or closing process and the funds could have been available at closing of the home purchase. The IRS did not need to be involved at all. Their time could be used for better purposes. Today, the audit rate for individual returns is just 1% (IRS 2009 Data Book, pg 22). Now in 2010, the IRS will be spending a lot of time auditing 1040s that claimed the homebuyer credit, even tho most were probably legitimate.

Really can't agree, the honey really does help the throat, in my experience.

No, it does not need a corrected 1096 unless you are correcting an already issued 1099. For the situation of just issuing new forms, you just do the regular 1096 for those forms. The 1096 is just basically a 'cover letter' for the 1099's, so it does not matter if there end up being more than one of them, each one it related to the 1099s sent with it. And yes, I've done it before, and no problems at all.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, TOM. DON'T FORGET TO TREAT YOUR SWEET WIFE TO SOMETHING SPECIAL TODAY! :lol:

Revenue Procedure 2011-21 provides the depreciation deduction limitations for owners of passenger automobiles (including trucks and vans) first placed in service during calendar year 2011 and the amount to be included in income by lessees of passenger automobiles first leased during calendar year 2011. These depreciation deduction limitations and income inclusion amounts are updated annually pursuant to section 280F to reflect the automobile price inflation adjustments. Rev. Proc. 2011-21 also modifies Rev. Proc. 2010-18, to increase the depreciation limitations and lessee inclusion amounts for passenger automobiles first placed in service or leased in 2010 by taxpayers claiming the section 168(k) additional first year depreciation deduction pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. the link

This you may also want to bookmark: 5. IRS Updates the Allowable Living Expense Standards for 2011 The Internal Revenue Service released the 2011 update to the Allowable Living Expense Standards on March 1. The ALE standards are used to reduce subjectivity in determining what a taxpayer may claim as basic living expenses necessary to avoid undue hardship when the taxpayer must delay full payment of a delinquent tax. The standard allowances provide consistency and fairness in collection determinations by incorporating average expenditures for basic necessities for citizens in similar geographic areas. My link

4. More Business Package Mailings End Following Growth of e-File Business taxpayers will no longer receive certain tax packages in the mail from the IRS. Most importantly, the Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return will no longer be mailed.

Sorry to hear you have a cold. Keep in mind the latest studies have found that straight honey is a better cough med than any of the over the counter cough syrups. Honey and lemon juice, or honey and bourbon if you prefer, is even better, as the first version cuts the over-sweet taste and the second will help you sleep. <_<

You have the client sign the 8879 which stays in your file, and you have them mail the 8453 with the needed attachment(s).

And I, in my more cynical moments, think that one reason the IRS does not seem to care about the kid claiming himself is that in many [maybe even most] cases the result is that while the kid gets more than he should, the parents lose more, and Uncle Sam is the true winner. Note that in the example that started this, the parents went from getting $900 to owing $400, a loss of $1300 to them. The son went from getting $244 to getting $1200, a gain to him of $956. Uncle Sam got to keep the difference, or $344 gain to IRS. Indeed, that may be why I always get my clients to accept doing it right. I do this math, and then suggest that if the parents really want to give him the extra money, they can just give him the $956 out of their refund, and THEY get to keep the extra $344.

It is true that in the past, the person who never filed was often never noticed, but that was before the IRS put on the pressure for 1099s. And it is also true that if it was a W-2 with enough withholding, they will not bother to follow up on why it was not filed for the refund. But in today's system, if there actually was a 1099 reported to the IRS for 50K of income, there would for sure be a demand for a return and/or a payment. I've got one in here that came yesterday. He just got letters for 2006, 2007, and 2008 for not filing on 1099s. I'm guessing though, that it was the 2008 that got them to take action, because the amounts on the 1099s ranged from 6.250 to 7200 per year, and there was only one each year, for a very small tax bite, since only SE tax was owed. BUT, in 2008, somehow the IRS showed the same $7,200 FIVE TIMES, five identical 1099s from the one payer. So now we have to get a letter from that employer verifying that in actual fact, he only made a total of $7,200 for the year, and the other four duplicates, wherever the error was made, need to be eliminated.

Now that is ingenious, use a fake SS number for the first half year, then change to your real number.....Sounds like the next year he kept the real one for the first half, expecting to change jobs and numbers in July, but given the economy, he decided to stay with that job, so was stuck with his real number all year. That guy was lucky to get to walk out, I'd have been tempted to kick him as he went out, so that he 'flew' out and landed on his face!

Honestly, Bill, I do not know for certain what I would do in that situation, because I always just do it the right way and tell the clients 'this is the only legal way to do it" and so far they have always accepted my decision and the return. When I wrote that response I was just feeling ticked off that the IRS puts so much responsibility on US to do things right, then seems to often accept returns that are on their face, so clearly questionable that they should never have been paid out without some follow-up first. I'd just been looking over a return brought in by a new referral that seemed fraudulent on it's face! A hair stylist, with over 8000 miles of 'business mileage' and over 3K of 'utilities' although she just rents a chair in someone's beauty shop. Oh, yeah, had 'tools' of over 1K. I have an honest hair stylist that I have done for more years than I can remember, and she has never had over $300 of new 'tools' in one year, even the year she moved into her own shop. 'Tools' being the dryers, curling irons, combs, etc. Yet this woman had been filing similar returns for at least 3 years, and has never even gotten a mail audit of any of these items. And no, she is NOT going to be my client.

My link

Show it all on his, then issue a 1099 from him to the other owner for his half, and take that deduction. That gets them both back to even. Half was 'nominee income'