kcjenkins

An accountant visited the Natural History museum. While standing near the dinosaur he said to his neighbor: "This dinosaur is two billion years and ten months old". "Where did you get this exact information?" "I was here ten months ago, and the guide told me that the dinosaur is two billion years old." An accountant is having a hard time sleeping and goes to see his doctor. "Doctor, I just can't get to sleep at night." "Have you tried counting sheep?" "That's the problem - I make a mistake and then spend three hours trying to find it."

A partnership does not have to be written to be legal. Just telling you that they had converted the business into a partnership made it a fact. Clearly now the dad has decided he does not want to stay with that, but it does not change what he told you at the time. I'd talk to the son before making a decision if I wanted to continue with this job or not. But that is your call.

Yes, clearly, since you WERE paid, you can not ask to be removed after the fact. Doesn't mean you need to go over the cliff with him, but does mean your name is properly on the return. Time to shift gears and forget about him. If any follow-up comes from the IRS, your records and good reputation should protect you.

I expect the clients to bring ME candy, not the other way around. Although I do have a peppermint candy box on my desk, that I keep mints in. Mostly because I do not want to be accused of 'false advertising' when an unsuspecting client opens it and the mouse jumps out. Yes, I point out, there ARE candies in there........ My grandkids love that candy box, so it stays. Most clients know about it now, of course.

If the debt is only in her name, he never was on the card, at all, ever, then it's based on her solvancy. However, if in a community property state, that is irrelevant.

That's a funny one.

Marilyn, I gave you the black and white answer. You just did not like it. I cited the actual TAX CODE wording, which I will repeat the relevant part here again. (A) In general. The term "purchase" means any acquisition, but only if-- (ii) the basis of the property in the hands of the person acquiring such property is not determined-- (I) in whole or in part by reference to the adjusted basis of such property in the hands of the person from whom acquired, or (II) under section 1014(a) [iRC Sec. 1014(a)] (relating to property acquired from a decedent). It may not "seem fair", because perhaps it is not, but it is the law. That was the way the law was written, so that is what it is.

Any time a 1099-S is issued, you need to report the sale, even though you are taking the §121 exclusion.

Down south, Bubba called his attorney and asked, "Is it true theys suin them cigarette companies fer causin people to git cancer ?" "Yes, Bubba, sure is true," responded the lawyer. "And now someone is suin them fast food restaurants Fer makin them fat an cloggin their arteries with all them burgers an fries, is that true, Mista Lawyer?" "Sure is, Bubba." "And that lady sued McDonalds for millions when she Was gave that hot coffee that she ordered?" "Yep." "And that football player sued that university when he gradiated and still couldn't read?" "That's right," said the lawyer." "But why are you asking?" "Well, I was thinkin . . .. What I want to know is, kin I sue Budweiser fer all them ugly women I'd been hanging out with?"

Did he, in fact, pay you for the return?

It means that they all have a right to be informed of tax issues, always been my policy that I would discuss any tax matter involving a partnership with any partner. Not only the 'tax matters' partner. That is part of the nature of a partnership, the 'joint and several liability' means they each have a right to be informed of all tax issues. And since a partnership is legal without any written partnership, the simple act of the Dad informing you that he was making it a partnership did 'create' a partnership. He can not just 'change his mind, and retroactively make that fact go away.

Were the officers salaries subject to the Unemployment tax? If they are not covered, then they can't draw on it. But if their salary was exempt, they probably are not covered. The state Wage and Hour folks can probably tell you for sure.

Doesn't seem like it should matter, because most of the money should be eaten up by the tuition, anyway, right?

3) Purchase. (A) In general. The term "purchase" means any acquisition, but only if-- (i) the property is not acquired from a person related to the person acquiring such property (or, if married, such individual's spouse), and (ii) the basis of the property in the hands of the person acquiring such property is not determined-- (I) in whole or in part by reference to the adjusted basis of such property in the hands of the person from whom acquired, or (II) under section 1014(a) [iRC Sec. 1014(a)] (relating to property acquired from a decedent). Thus, the inheritance of part makes the entire house not eligible.

I think you will end up having to fire this guy. But while you may have to discuss this with an attorney or insurance carrier, I think the son was, you were informed, a partner, so I'd discuss this with him.

V is exercise of none-stat employee stock option, so it just becomes part of his basis in the stock. Not on the return unless he then sold the stock.

And Tom's reasons are my reasons for also advising that you just go ahead and file it MFS and accept the consequences. If he were not already in the spotlight it would be a different situation, but he is, so 'trying' is not going to work anyway. His SSN is already 'flagged' so you can not just slip it in and hope for good luck.

Sounds like he would qualify for the FTHBC, since he did not own the previous home. And the total cost of the home should include the cost to get it set up, as well as the purchase price. If he did not have it set up by the company that sold it, he needs to get detailed receipt from the folks that set it up, to document not only what was done, but the location, date, etc.

No, insolvency would. But not the personal residence exclusion. And since his credit was good enough for him to buy his brother a house, I was assuming he was not insolvent. But given today's economy that might not be the case today.

Not on tax return, of course, but on financial statements it would be.

No, if it's within an IRA it's not taxable now. Although when it is eventually sold, it will be ordinary income, because of being in the IRA, where it might have been capital gains had he invested in it personally.

Reason I said 'they blew it' was based on your saying that Mom used the money to pay off her car. If you want to change that now, that's up to you, but I was reacting to the 'facts' as you posted them, Margaret. As for the dependency, same thing. YOU SAID "Daughter moved to client's rental building as resident caretaker", which means she is paying for the rent through her services. So that is not Mom providing housing, that is property owner paying employee a fringe benefit. Which, by the way, while not taxable on the Fed return, CA considers it subject to state payroll taxes, I believe. Better check that.

The MFJ vs MFS worksheet can give you the % each had, and from that you can 'split' the refund to the same percentage, and form 8888 will let you split the refund into each account. Just don't waste a lot of time on getting it perfectly divided, you know they will not want to pay for the extra time. Just use any logical division, and tell them 'that's what it is'.

I would not mark that box, Tom. Just entering the correct 'taxable amount' is not altering the form, as I understand the rules. The amount that is taxable is something that YOU determine, as I see it. Your call, but why flag it for such a simple issue?

Yes, we all do it now and then, especially as tax season gets further along. Tired already, and not even through with the farmers. [March 1 deadline for farmers] One large one brought in their paperwork Wed.