kcjenkins

Sounds like you sent them more than once, somehow. I'd check with the efile help desk, and see if they aren't already acked. If they are, get ATX to rehang the acks, if running sync does not fix them.

Actually, most of those questions was on the last one I got 10 years ago. [Hard to believe it's been that long.] I just skipped most of them. The Constitution does not require that we answer all those.

As I read it, they did pay him rent. At least that is what it said in the first post. And now they have paid him one last time. I'd show it as rent, then how I'd handle it going forward would depend on his plans. Is he going to rent it to someone else? Convert it to personal use? Sell it? If he's going to continue renting it, no need to do anything but show the rent. If he's converting it to personal use, you want to use the 'disposal' tab to show that, so that it does not show up next year. If he's going to sell it, I'd keep it on the asset schedule until it is sold. I'm not going to touch the issue of this 'unofficial church' and what kind of bookkeeping they did. As long as your client did not control the money, as seems to be the case, it's not his problem. Unless it's his family members that controlled it, that is.

As a foster child, he'd have to be with them all year. An 'adopted' child is simply your child, so the adoption is not an issue, but it's not clear what the actual relationship is, based on the original post. I just know I would not claim a dependent who was in jail for the entire year. Seems like a perversion of the whole idea of dependency.

Effectively the bank just made him another loan for the amount of the taxes, and it's just like the original mortgage, it's deductible.

She has not got the money, according to the post. If he had listed her as the person to get the funds if he died, the bank could do it. But apparently he did not do that. If he had no will, she's going to have to go to court to get access to the funds. In the mean time, an estate return needs to be filed, because he screwed up this, uh, created this situation. Maybe he did not trust her? It's going to take the probate court to fix it now.

How can he meet the qualifying tests, when the state was the one providing housing and food and even medical?

The Power of a Badge A Drug Enforcement Administration officer stops at a ranch in Texas and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, "I'm here to inspect your ranch for marijuana." The rancher points and says, "Okay, but don't go in that field over there." "Mister," the DEA officer explodes, "I've got the authority of the federal government with me!" He produces his badge from his pocket and proudly displays it to the rancher. "See this? This badge means I'm allowed to go wherever I want -- no questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? You understand me, old man?" The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores. A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased by the rancher's gigantic Santa Gertrudis bull. With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he'll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs: "Your badge. Show him your BADGE!"

I'd be careful about your way of answering things, Denne. When you say "We have had no notices...." that WE sure makes it sound like you are part of this business.

Well, of course you are right. But I just went ahead and filled out and mailed the darn thing. At least this year they did not send me one of those 'everything but the kitchen sink' versions. As for the question on Race, I filled it out as I ALWAYS DO. I check the box for 'Other' and where it asks you to fill in what that is I write "Human". That is the only race that they need to know about to do the job of counting us.

Is the 1099G in the return, or did you just enter the amount on the worksheet? Seems to me that the program wants that 1099G.

From James Taranto's column: The Montreal Gazette reports from a "thinkers' conference" held by Canada's opposition Liberal Party: In a morning session on health care the conference was told that Canadians and their governments must face up to some hard facts and have "an adult conversation" about the future of the country's health care system. The advice came from David Dodge, the past governor of the Bank of Canada and former deputy finance minister who said medicare costs will inevitably rise in coming years at a greater rate than government revenues and the country's gross domestic product, and require some unpalatable choices to be made. Choices he suggested include new taxes specifically dedicated for health care or a steady reduction in the scope and quality of services provided by the public health system that would require people to either pay for private care themselves or suffer ever greater wait times for service in the public system. "These are stark and unpalatable choices that we face with respect to health care, but there is no magic solution," he said. "We absolutely must have an adult debate about how we deal with this. Finding solutions in this area is extraordinarily difficult, but it is imperative." No magic solution? Dude, haven't you heard of Barack Obama? He just signed a law that will reduce the deficit by giving totally awesome health care to all Americans! Why don't they just pass a similar law up north? What's the matter with Canada?

Yes, if you follow Jainen's advice, the client will get that letter, because the rules of the EIC allow you in add the Sch C net income or loss, in calculating the 'earned' income. So they are entitled to the EIC. It would not bother me, I like seeing some of that EIC money going to working people who are trying to build a business.

Well, yes, Mike, up to a point, I do post this sort of thing to get a debate started. I think that discussing the pros and cons is a way of learning, clarifying ideas, and inspiring us to be more informed. And because a lot of this stuff they are doing in DC makes me mad. But no one has to read it, or take part, unless they want to. And it gives you a chance to convince me to see your side of it, after all. I have to say, tho, that I;ve discussed this with friends from England, and from Canada, and their input helped make me not want it. Yes, it's free, but it's a lot less quality. They do have some fine doctors, and hospitals, but a lot less of them than we do, per capita. And less prevention because of the long waits for specialized treatment. I'm not against fixing problems, although I disagree with you about the profit level of the insurance companies. Drug company profits go largely into developing new drugs, and the US is the single largest source of new drugs for the entire world, thanks to that. One reason for the large increase in health care costs is simply that we have developed so many new drugs and therapies, that enable us to live not only longer, but better during that extra time. I think that is a good trade off, myself. What bothers me about this bill is that it does not fix much, it just taxes more so that more people can get subsidized and it sets up another huge bureaucracy as well. Are you aware that the British healthcare system is one of the largest employers in the world? ENGLAND may once have been a nation of shopkeepers, but it is becoming a country of healthcare workers, with one in every twenty-three of the working population being employed by the NHS. A total of 1,282,900 people in England have jobs with the NHS: 2 per cent of the 30 million people of working age. Only the Chinese Army and the Indian State Railways are believed to employ more people — with 2.3 million and 1.5 million staff respectively — but both workforces represent a far smaller proportion of those national populations. The figures come a day after a report into cancer services by the National Audit Office, the parliamentary watchdog, revealed that a shortage of diagnostic specialists was partly to blame for England’s poor cancer survival rates.

You said it very well, Cat. The truth is that we've already promised so much we are in trouble, without adding a single new program. And when an attempt was made to at least debate fixing SS and Medicare, those in control in the House, where such bills must start, would not even allow it to be debated three years ago. Now, this latest bill takes half a TRILLION dollars out of SS? Do you think the average voter has any idea how much money that is? Some people, [most people?] think that a Trillion is just a bit bigger than a Billion, which is a bit bigger than a Million. A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 YEARS. A trillion seconds is 31,688 Years !!!!! And we have 139 Trillion in Unfunded obligations to SS NOW, so we're going to spend more on expanding government handouts?

Thank you, Tilt, for that. I should have checked it out before I posted, but I'm tired, and when I read that it just started my blood boiling. I know better than to just fire off without checking, but last night I just fired away. While I still object strenuously to the Cap & Tax bill on many other grounds, I do apologize for posting this without checking it out.

You do not adjust the balance sheet when the value of an asset goes up. Only when there is a purchase, or a sale or other disposal. So the value did not change until the death of the partner, when the value would reflect the step up in basis due to the inheritance. That does not change older balance sheets.

:wub: Thank you. :wub:

They are not all the same, but way too many of them, on both sides, are very similar. Sure there are a few who actually stand on principle, and honor the Constitution. But many Republicans, I'm sad to say, are also big government, nanny-state supporters, just not as extreme about it as the current over-the-top leaders of the Democrats. There is not nearly as MUCH difference as there needs to be. Hopefully, however, these huge power grabs the current leadership is trying will be enough to wake up the voters for a while. Yes, the pols listen more to the lobbyists than to us, but much of that is because we let them. If we do not hold them responsible, then it is just sensible for them to listen to the $$$. But all the $$$ in the world will not get them re-elected if we actually get mad enough and fire a bunch of them. We still have the power of our votes, [so far] and if the majority of people get mad enough to actually use that power, we will regain the attention and respect of the pols. Keeping their jobs is the primary goal of most all of them. If we show them that ignoring our wishes will lose them the job, they will change their behavior. Personally, for me, this Cap & Trade bill is so far over the top that I will do absolutely everything in my power to stop it, and to defeat any politician who supports it. It's totally outrageous that anyone else has the audacidy to think that they can tell me whether or not I can sell my house. Or tell me what I have to do with or to my house. By the way, I just filled out my Census form. Anyone else who resents being asked about Race? I marked 'Other' and filled in Human in the blanks. That is the only 'race' that should matter to our government, dang it!

Terry, you are missing something. Taxpayers have the option to get the rebate faster, by amending their 09 return for the 2010 purchase, assuming that they qualify for it. Congress did that in hopes of getting the rebate money out faster, for a faster 'stimulus', don't you know?

Exactly! People look at engergy cost just like everything else, will the savings justify the cost? If it is cheaper to heat a drafty house, than it is to make it less drafty, then they will usually not spend the money. But when they buy new windows, they will probably look for the best ratings, but still balance energy issues against pocketbook issues. To say that you MUST have your house measured, and have a 'Label' before you can market it, is a lot different from offering a system where you can CHOOSE, as a marketing tool, to get your house rated. Most new construction today is way more energy effeicient that the old methods were. But it should still be OUR CHOICE, not some unelected bureacrat in DC ordering us to get this Lable, or else! This bill puts incredible power into the hands of someone who does not even have to stand for election. Not that I'd want it even if we got to elect them, but it's even worse when we can't even fire them! The head of the EPA serves at the pleasure of the President. If you like this President, you probably did not like the last one. Who knows who will like the next one. Just think about that when you think about giving this much power to any one person.

Tom and Gail, I don't totally disagree with you on this. I think there are a number of things that could and should be done to improve our system. BUT THIS BILL IS NOT IT. And Gail, just remember, COBRA started out only covering employers with 50 or more employees, it's already down to 20. And it covered 6 months, now that is up to 18. It's a big extra cost on business, and getting bigger by leaps and bounds. Maybe this bill will change that, but somehow I doubt it. More likely it will just be added to it.

I think you need to put those on a Sch C-EZ, Diane. Or else you need to file form 8919 if you believe the tp was in fact, an employee, not an independent contractor.

She can claim it in either year, whichever works best for her. That is assmuming she qualifes for the credit. You ask if she is entitled to it, but don't give us enough details to determine that. I suggest you look at the IRS website, where they have a good section on this very question. It's not a simple answer, it depends on a number of different factors.

And yes, you just do it as a regular 1040, since it is the first return ever filed for them for that year. A SFR is not considered a Return, because, among other reasons, it is not signed by the taxpayer(s). It's just the two-by-four upside their head to get their attention. ;)