kcjenkins

I agree. The list of items indicates this is not just some common garden-variety audit. They should almost certainly hire an attorney, and then have the attorney hire you to assist, if they have many years of potential exposure. More companies have been destroyed by such an audit than most people realize.

You said it. You need to contact the plan administration if you need more info. Basically, tho, if there is no money he has access to other than his monthly payments, that is all you need to consider. Have you done an insolvency worksheet?

What you need to add is the Form 5405. There is nothing you need to do on the election except include it, which the program automatically did for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEnFwiqdx8

Let's hope that is ALL of us, Atticus.

Here's wishing you a wonderful :bday:

:bday: to you, and many more.

We wish so too, Deb. Maybe you can set it up again tomorrow, and get it with your camera.

Me too. Thanks, Margaret.

Well, while I think the IRS has some reasonable logic to their decision, as long as they allow deductions for Viagra, they will never hold the 'high ground'. Of course, if this is allowed for moms wiho have had a mastectomy, why not also for moms who just have not got enough breast milk? Impossible to determine who is and is not qualified. The only practical way to administer would be to make all baby formula deductible, seems to me.

That bolded phrase is really scary to me. AT ANY TIME DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR? As that is written, it could apply if you worked for ABC inc, and were covered, then laid off in July, and could not afford COBRA payments, then went to work for ZXY in Aug and were covered again. You'd still be subject to the tax penalty, because you were not covered during July.

Thanks for that link. It makes it a lot clearer, even tho it leaves a lot of questions.

A very :bday:

Hope you have a great :bday:

Sent that link to ATX, and got this back: Good Afternoon KC, Thank you for forwarding this link to us. We have forwarded it to the appropriate department. This is not an authorized reseller of our TaxWise or ATX Product lines. If you have any further questions or concerns about anything please feel free to reply to this email and I will be more than happy to further assist you. Thank you for using ATX, Mary Nixon Customer Service Level 2/Email Team, ATX CCH Small Firm Services, a Wolters Kluwer business This did not surprise me, since these clowns were using the software names, and one thing that was made plain during the TRX discussions was that they do not allow resellers to use the brand names.

Well, with CA shutting down the irrigation to protect a 2 inch fish that is basically nothing but a bait fish, there won't be any tomatoes to harvest soon anyway. Nor peaches, nor cucumbers, nor........ oh well, we can just buy them from Mexico, where there are virtually no workers protections.

Here's a link to a good review of inherited Roth IRAs. http://www.fairmark.com/rothira/inherit.htm Other than that, I'd want to look at the client's paperwork, to see exactly what the options are, and the qualifiers. That paperwork should have all the details, restrictions, etc spelled out. I've never heard of this option either, so I would have to read it before I could advise on it.

http://sandbox.amazinzay.com/UTM/aboutus.html Would anyone really want to deal with those three for the software that is totally vital to your business?

For an 18 year old in 2006, he would file a 1040, it would not have to be on the parent's return, even though he was their dependent, in 2006. At that time, a child had to be 14 or under, if my memory serves, to cause the parent's to have to include the child's income, or have the child use the parent's rate, etc.

Yes, if you have multiple tax homes during the year, I believe you would show the multiple addresses.

It's still good to know how it needs to be taken care of, Tom. So I'm sure your post will be helpful to some others. Thank God I do not have to fool with CA sales tax. And that SNI bought the CFS CA Sales Tax program, so they get it right now.

I think Jainen has touched on the key element here. While the decree may say that "each parent gets to claim one of the children", it is highly unlikely that it says that "the custodial parent must sign the 8332 even if the child support has not been paid", and without the signed 8332 the non-custodial parent can not claim the child. Unless, of course, he lies and claims the child actually lived with him more than half the year, as we have all seen some do, to get around not having the 8332. Also, I can not speak for all jurisdictions, but I do know that here, if someone takes the custodial parent to court for not following the decree and signing the 8332, when the reason given is that the other parent did not follow the decree and pay the support, the court will not find her in contempt. To do so would be unconcionable and an honest judge will always take both parties actions into account. Now, if he only missed one payment, or had a really good reason, that could make a difference. But no way will an honest judge reward a scofflaw for his actions in such a way.

:bday: to you, and many more.

Have a very :bday:

:bday: