kcjenkins

I encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has already passed the House of Representatives and is being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington! This Congress and whoever on their staffs write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA.... A License Required for your house Thinking about selling your house - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable! Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else. But that is how DC works now. But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right. The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initialy so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year. The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202: Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America . Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that's YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in." Sect. 204: OH, this one is GOOD! Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act." This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year. Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304: Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards. So you thought the States had Rights? Silly you!

Line 21 was my instintive choice too, but then I decided, before popping off, to check the instructions, and that says it should go to Line 7. And that is the only automatic link for box 7 onless the return includes either a C, an F or a C-EZ.

Strange, I've had no problem with it at all. Perhaps you need a better popup blocker?

For the mechanics of it, I'd do the federal MFJ return, then duplicate it twice. On copy 1, delete her and all her W-2's, then change status to MFS, go to the state return and make sure all his info is there, and all hers is gone, and rename this one "his name, MFS State'. On copy two, delete his W-2s, remove his name and put her name on the top line with her SSN, change her W-2s etc to remove the spouse check, then change the status to MFS. And rename this one "her name, MFS State'. Be sure you double check these 'state' versions carefully to make sure each one only contains that persons income, of course. It's easy to end up counting some savings account twice, for example. But it's still faster than any other way I know. And don't feel bad about having to charge them for all this extra work. IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT. It was their choices that put them in this situation, it's a one-time deal, but it's perfectly fair for you to be paid for getting them properly filed, even tho they made it hard.

It is taxable compensation, but it is not SE taxable unless it is earned in a trade or business. Since she is not 'in the business' of being a guinea pig, I'd link it to Line 7 rather than to a Sch C. That is what the instructions advise.

I'm very sorry for that young woman, but be honest. The number of women in their mid-20s who have ovarian cancer [or any cancer] is extremely small, so even if she had had health insurance, it's very likely she would not have been detected soon enough, nor gotten treatment soon enough. And under the new rules, that will still be the case, in all likelihood. You know that as well as I do. The incidence of ovarian cancer rises with age. Half of all cases are detected in women older than 65, and most are diagnosed after age 60. The American Cancer Society recommends annual pelvic exams for all women over age 40 to increase the chances of early detection. Do you seriously expect us to believe that government run healthcare will spend money on testing women in their 20s for this?

My link

Yes, the test for need to file is based on gross income, not net or taxable income.

I'd pass on this one myself, given the limitations on my time. It's a huge job, so unless you feel able to carry it through, don't even start. You have ZERO obligation, AT THIS POINT. But once you start, you have an obligation to every one of the partners. And since these partners have already shown a lot of careless disregard for their own obligations, the odds are fairly high that at some point at least one of the 5 is going to "blame the messenger". Plus, in my experience, those people who procrastinate for 5 years tend to be the ones who then get in a real hurry to 'get it over with'. And this is not going to be an easy one to get done, since they have not kept a good set of books, etc.

Yeah, you have to create the efile to have the DCN inserted, and also to check that there are no efile errors that the regular check did not see, but that affect the efile. I create, print, then create again, every time.

Probably started making the non-deductible IRA contributions before the ROTH was available, and just continued doing it the same way without thinking about it. Or not realizing that there was a reason to change. Sure, his preparer should have explained it to him, but they may not have given it much thought, or they may have brought it up and he did not understand the differences and just decided to stay with what he was used to doing.

The problems you mention are the reason I advise not reporting the 'sale' until there is a 1099-C. The 1099-A is basically advisory, but the FMV reported is often off by quite a lot. The IRS does not match based on the A, they do match on the C, so if you report it now, you are going to be dealing with CP2000s that are going to be a mess to deal with.

From the same Pub: Annuity starting date. If you retire from federal government service on a regular annuity, your annuity starting date is the commencing date on your annuity statement from OPM. If something delays payment of your annuity, such as a late application for retirement, it does not affect the date your annuity begins to accrue or your annuity starting date.

Recovering your cost tax free. How you figure the tax-free recovery of the cost of your CSRS or FERS annuity depends on your annuity starting date. If your annuity starting date is before July 2, 1986, either the Three-Year Rule or the General Rule (both discussed later) applies to your annuity. If your annuity starting date is after July 1, 1986, and before November 19, 1996, you could have chosen to use either the General Rule or the Simplified Method (discussed later). If your annuity starting date is after November 18, 1996, you must use the Simplified Method. Under both the General Rule and the Simplified Method, each of your monthly annuity payments is made up of two parts: the tax-free part that is a return of your cost, and the taxable part that is the amount of each payment that is more than the part that represents your cost (unless such payment is used for purposes discussed under Distributions Used To Pay Insurance Premiums for Public Safety Officers , later). The tax-free part is a fixed dollar amount. It remains the same, even if your annuity is increased. Generally, this rule applies as long as you receive your annuity. However, see Exclusion limit , later. Pub 721

Depends on where you live and work, Jasdim. I am about 90 miles from Tunica MS, which is now a major casino location, so I see lots of them. People in or near Las Vegas or AC also see lots of them. People in other parts of the country typically see a lot fewer.

Well, there is a difference in a sale of land for right-of-way vs just an easement to allow access. I agree that if that was all it was, you could adjust basis. But most of these I have seen around here involve an actual quit-claim deed, so it's a reportable sale. It's all in the facts and circumstances, folks, which is what makes taxes so much FUN, right? [i've about over-dosed on FUN for now, personally. ]

Assuming, as is most likely, that these were all deductible normal IRA contributions, he would pay tax on the $30,000 he takes out, and he would not be entitled to deduct the loss. If part was non-deductible, he could deduct that loss, since he took the total distribution, assuming this was his ONLY IRA. Remember, it's a total distribution from ALL IRAs, to qualify to deduct the loss.

Yes, I've done that many times, never had a single letter from it.

In many cases, if he does go back to court, the smartest thing he can ask the Judge to do is to adjust the child support down a bit to offset the lost tax benefit. Because even if the Judge threatens to jail her for contempt, an unlikely outcome, she can sign the papers then rescind them anyway. The deck is stacked against him and he might as well understand that now. Of course, the best thing he could do is go out of his way to get along with the mother of his child. [Even if she is Cruella's daughter.] But, hey, emotion is seldom a reasonable thing, right?

Actually, my experience is that it is best to file the kid's amendment, and wait about 6 weeks to file the parents. Then try efiling the parent's return. If it is rejected because of the kid's return, wait another couple of weeks then go ahead and paper file their return. If you try to rush the parent's return through, it's just going to get changed, because of the kid, and that's going to delay longer, you will end up having to amend theirs to add the kid, later, etc.

[i edited your topic title for you.] Here's a link to a good source of info on conversions of IRA to ROTH. My link

The housing allowance impact is one of the reasons for the Clergy Worksheets, folks. If it is used, the correct amount will flow to the SE automatically. When the house is provided, you input the FMV of the house and you also input what he actually spends on things like utilities, upkeep, lawn care, repairs, furnishings, etc. The worksheet computes the taxable amount very nicely if you use that.

I had the same mental image, Jainen. Scary, would not want to work there myself......

This is false. What is true is that at 70 your SS benefits start whether you are retired or not, and are not reduced no matter how much you earn from working, but it's still taxable up to 85% if you make enough other income. Also, after workers reach full retirement age, they receive special credit--referred to as a delayed retirement credit (DRC)--for each full month before age 70 in which they are eligible for, but do not receive Social Security benefits. Any DRC that a worker earns also applies to the benefits of the worker's widow or widower. The rate of this DRC varies according to the worker's year of birth.

My link This link will direct you to several different sources. I suggest you send the client the link and let them do the research.