kcjenkins

Did you check the KnowledgeBase?

Only in leap years are there "equal halves" of the year. And even in those years, the rule is that the parent who has the child MORE THAN 50% of the time has the exemption, unless they give it to the other with a 8332. So if it really was 50/50 [highly unlikely unless they live next door to each other or the child is under school age] then you would be looking at the tie-breaker rule. But if he stays with Mom Monday night through Thursday night, and Dad Friday night through Sunday night, and they share the vacations equally, she has the kid anytime she wants to take him.

We feel your pain, and we understand. Although I do wonder, did you not have a UPS surge protector on your business computer? A good UPS is basic, but I know many of us tend to buy one and then forget about it. Was it fried too? Might have insurance on your computer through that? My APC ones do provide it.

Line 1 would be Personal Residence, address, year purchased, date of disaster. If you use the Input tab, you can use the ? help button to pull up the instructions and it will jump to the section related to that line.

Just a quick followup, got this back from ATX forms folks. The following Request Status provides the latest information we have regarding your request: Form 886-H-FTHBC is being considered for development. You will receive an update regarding the status of our decision at a later date.

Yes, he moved south, but then they let him go at the end of the season. Something I have not forgiven them for yet! I miss him a lot. He used to post here, but have not heard from him in ages.

I'm copying an entire post from another board, that includes diffinitive answer from an official source. Hope this helps the undecided. ******************************************* Considering all the confusion about the new 1040X, I e-mailed the AZ Stakeholder Liaison officer of IRS and asked him for the IRS official position on the matter. The following is his response along with my original question. Margaret A. Stallworthy, CPA From: Lopez George D [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: New Form 1040 X Hi Margaret, As you can guess, we received this same question from other practitioners. Here is the response we received from *TAXFORMS. Yes, either revision of the 1040X is acceptable for at least 2010 and 2011. They will process both. Hope this helps, George Lopez, SLF Ph - (602) 636-9474 [email protected] From: Margaret Stallworthy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 9:54 AM To: Lopez George D Subject: New Form 1040 X George – could you please post a message regarding the IRS official position on the NEW Form 1040X with respect to amending prior years? There is much confusion in the tax preparer community over whether this form is now MANDATORY for amended years prior to 2009, or if we can still use the former version for the earlier years. There is nothing in the instructions to the new form that addresses this in any way - in fact there is no reference at all to how to fill out Line B which is where the “year to be amended” information goes. This is becoming a major pain since the software providers seem to all be taking the position that the new form is optional for years prior to 2009 and they are not providing updates to prior-year software, but their response to support questions use words like “we assume” so they obviously are not 100% certain either. Thank you for your assistance. If you will send the message to your normal e-mail distribution list, it will be forwarded by Terry Levitan and others so it will get to most, if not all, tax preparers in AZ and the surrounding area. Margaret A. Stallworthy, CPA [email protected] (602) 997-8951; FAX (602) 997-1854 5125 N 16th St. Ste C138 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Web site: www.mas-cpa.com *************************************************

You are right, Bill. It's not law yet, although it probably will be.

Sounds like tech support is the right option.

It would be hard to explain her paying these expenses as anything else than rent. Just because that rent is based on taxes or mortgage payments does not mean that they are those, TO HER. Because she is not obligated on the mortgage nor for the taxes.

The first question is what was the context of this loan? Was there a business reason for the loan? There are several court cases supporting taking business loss if there is a clear business relationship to the loan.

http://www.webcpa.com/ato_issues/2009_14/-51247-1.html Here is a link to the current ETAAC report: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3415.pdf

I get local honey from one client, cleaned and ready-to-cook fish from another, and occasionally fresh, free range eggs from another. The eggs are a mixed blessing, because they are so much better than store-bought eggs that its hard not to get spoiled and I can not buy them anywhere I know of.

Those sound wonderful. I've never seen them, but Dinstuhls in Memphis has wonderful dark chocolate brandy cherries. I have not thought about them in years, but now I think I am going to have to make a trip over there!

You are right Gloria, the code makes a clear distinction between "trade or business" and "rental activity". Both are profit-motivated, but each has it's own rules. Just as business assets and residential rental assets can both be depreciated, but have different rules for doing so.

Here's a bit more interesting info about Delaware corps. My link Two thirds of the Fortune 500 use Delaware to cut down on their state taxes, the Times says. And so we wondered: does New York's mayor get in on that action too? It turns out that thirty-seven companies tied to Mike Bloomberg -- including his flagships Bloomberg Inc. and Bloomberg L.P. -- were incorporated in 'The First State.' Most of the Bloomberg entities, including Bloomberg Cayman Islands LLC, are registered at 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, in Wilmington, Delaware, an address that also houses thousands of other businesses including Boeing, UBS, and Lexis Nexis. Bloomberg L.P. has a Cayman Island affiliate so it can "sell its products and services there," spokeswoman Judith Czelusniak says. (The company "developed a fully electronic listing and trading service" for the Cayman Stock Exchange, according to the islands' chamber of commerce.)

NO IRA, ROTH or traditional, can have more than one name on it. Something is off here. I'm wondering if this is even an IRA at all. Sounds like it might have been just a saving account or CD that had two names on it. That you can do. IRA you can not have but one person on it. That I in the name stands for Individual. No joint IRAa, of any kind. You can have joint beneficiaries but not joint owners.

The real point here seems to me is that the name and the CODE is what is wrong. The money was distributed to the beneficiary, after the death of the wife, so it does not go on the wife's return, it goes on the return of the beneficiary, where it is taxable. The 1099R should have been made out to "Mom Jones, as beneficiary of Ann Smith, deceased" and have Mom's SSN on it, Code 4.

In the year you are born, and the year you die, you are treated for tax purposes as if whatever part of the year you lived was a "full year". So you answer that question 'Yes'.

Someone who dies is treated as if they lived there the rest of the year. Yes, Mom would qualify, as long as she would have qualified if she had lived out the year.

I love See's dark chocolates. But then, I love any dark chocolates. Kerry sent me some fantastic ones from Maine last year!

Just one other thing. I'm not that up on NY state law, but some states, if all the activity and income is in that state they treat the 'foreign' corp the same as if it was incorporated in that state. That MIGHT be the reason for the in-state fee. Don't know, but I'd check that out. Maybe you can call the Sec of State office Monday and ask the question without giving a name, just a general question. What form does that fee show up on, anyway?

Many corps around the country incorporate in Delaware because they have the most friendly corp laws in the US. Nevada is the second most popular. Delaware’s large body of business laws helps a company plan carefully to avoid a lawsuit. Delaware’s Chancery Court oversees matters involving Delaware’s General Corporate Law and has a reputation as one of the finest courts in the country. Chancery Court issues decisions without jury trials, so their decisions are written, well thought-out and easy to follow. Legal textbooks rely heavily upon Delaware corporate case law to teach law students because of the well written opinions from the Delaware Judiciary, so most American corporate attorneys have studied Delaware corporate law. The Delaware Division of Corporations generates a considerable amount of revenue for the State, so they have invested in state-of-the-art imaging equipment, and process new filings very quickly. Delaware has a separate Court of Chancery, a business court. The Court does not use juries and the judges are appointed on merit, not elected. Because there are no juries, decisions from the Chancery Court are issued as written opinions. Because of that, Delaware has a large body of written legal precedent to rely upon. Delaware’s General Corporation Laws make it the friendliest state in America for corporations. All of this means you have a stable legal platform upon which to operate. In other words, you know the rules going in. In many states, the courts can change the rules on a popular whim, with little regard for the effect on business. Chancery Court practitioners recognize that “outside the takeover process... most Delaware corporations do not find themselves in litigation. The process of decision in the litigated cases has so refined the law that business planners may usually order their affairs to avoid law suits.” According to the Wilmington News Journal, some Delaware corporate attorneys have complained that they have worked themselves right out of a job.

I agree with Lynn. The thing is, she took money out as a loan, which when she defaulted was treated as a distribution. That reduced her basis in her 401K. However, the rules allowed her to repay the loan, even after the default, which does not give her a deduction [she got the deduction back when she contributed to the 401K originally] but does increase her basis by that amount.

Did you mean 179 property? If he offered to surrender them, and the trustee did not want them, he should not have any income from them, just remove them from the asset list. Since he was insolvent at the time, he has no income to pay tax on. But his basis in them goes to zero, if he gets back into the business later. Use form 982 to report this.