kcjenkins

I hope by 'send it in' you mean report it on the return, then back it out again, by putting it on a C-EZ then putting the same amount as Other Expenses and list as " 1099 received in error, see Form 8919". Do NOT send it off, you need to keep it as proof. Only send copies, with the SS-8.

Yes, clearly, you are going to have to look at their bookkeeping, to see where that money came from. Either they borrowed a lot of money for the business, then took it out for personal use, or that 'profit' was the amount left AFTER the distribution of profits to themselves. Clear that up, and you will probably know what to do. If not, post again with what you learned.

I don't have a problem with the size, there is at leaxt one court case that allowed 120 acres as part of the residential property eligible for exclusion. But the rental, even though it was 'barter' type rental, does affect that portion.

Basically comes down to whether the employee has any documented 'proof' that the withholding was done. Otherwise it's a "he said, he said" situation. EE claims taxes were withheld, ER says, no, that check was for services, I never withheld because he was not an EE he was an IC. Now, if the client has a pay stub, even one, that actually spells out that there was withholding, he's golden. If he does not, the only thing you can do is use the new 8919 to pay only his half, and to get the employer in trouble with the IRS. Or, if he wants to keep the job anyway, file a C-EZ and let him live with it. OR, if you have some basis for determining the amount withheld, and you and the client want to fight for the withholding, file a 4852, estimate the withholding, and claim it on the 4852. But be prepared for a fight if you have nothing to base it on but his word.

I have to disagree with Marilyn this time. Since they were married when they 'earned' the credit, they can give it all to one if they choose to. I'd work it both ways and see which benefits them the most.

It could be done either way, but having the program on the server should be the best option.

No, you have goofed somewhere. Although I did not get the same NOL as you. Did you put the std deduction on Line 6 of the worksheet, and the interest income on line 7?

I agree, Cathrine. I think we all need to vote out anyone who has been in the same office for more than 12 years, as well as a number of those who have been there less. Even the best get totally out of touch with the "real world" if they stay in DC too long. New broom, and all that..... What I would not give for term limits on Federal office!!!! I've stopped thinking of myself as a Republican, now, if asked, I just say I'm a Conservative. The Republicans used to be the party of the rich, and the Dem's were the party of the poor. Then, they gradually switched sides, and today the Dem's are the party of the rich, IMHO. But neither party is listening to the ordinary people who keep this country running. And they won't. as long as the majority don't even bother to vote, and those who do don't pay attention to what the people they elect DO, only to what they SAY.

:bday:

Have a very :bday:

Don't the Democrats ever learn? Sorry, but I could not believe what I was hearing and reading this morning. We have a budget crisis, so the Dems say that they "have no choice except to raise taxes". Raise them A LOT, in fact. First of all, the problem is not so much a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. But even if that were not true, it is a simple historical fact that when you raise taxes significantly, revenue goes DOWN. Studies of the effects of the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s and of the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s indicate that tax cuts raise aggregate supply as well as aggregate demand, raising long-run real GDP. The resulting increase in the tax base raised government tax revenue to offset partly the effects of lower tax rates. This does not imply that cutting tax rates will raise government tax revenue (though evidence suggests that past cuts in certain taxes have indeed increased revenue from those taxes). However, the important point is not that a tax cut will raise GDP enough that total tax payments will rise. They may not. The important point is that a tax cut will increase GDP. Does nobody in the Democrat leadership ever study history? Here are just a few links that I'd recommend they read. http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=460 [Especially ¶ 5-9] Also of interest to those who support a flat tax, by the way. [¶ 11] http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/r...ct/reagtxct.htm http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/r...ct/reagtxct.htm [Don't miss this one, its short and simple.] OK, let the debate begin. Just, please, keep it polite. We do not all have to agree, but we should strive to be agreeable.

Aren't all of those people also lawyers? Blaggo is the only one I'm not sure is.

I'd suggest that you at least get the free demo, which is, at this time, a full copy of the 08 program, and try entering a few of your returns in it. If you like it after you have entered 10 returns, of varying types, then go for it. All 'conversions' from any program are not going to be perfect on the more complex situations. Depreciation will always need to be double checked the first year, especially if there was anything tricky, like a part year situation, and carryovers need to be double-checked. But if you get the program now, you have time to convert the 08 returns, and check them, and then you would both learn to use the program better and also be ready for the 09 tax season.

Actually, I've been told by IRS employees that the de minimus cut off is $50. Processing a change costs them that much.

Believe it or not that is an actual name to a new Schedule for the tax returns. Sch M A draft of the schedule is posted at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-dft/f1040sm--dft.pdf and it is to compute the $400 credit that taxpayers will be getting. Part of the stimulus laws passed. Tax preparers stimulus, I guess, as it gives us one more schedule to charge for?

That means they will kill off Paycycle soon.

I suspect he just could not resist, given that when his post was made, the news on Burris had just been getting so much play. You have to admit, Joel, Chicago is getting a lot of coverage, and it's all bad right now. Acorn, Blaggo, Obama, Burris, ........the list seems endless.

Given that the changes would not be material in size, I'd probably just ignore them for reporting, unless the attorneys WANT them to be corrected. In other words, let the clients decide, and not take on that decision as your call.

A very :bday:

:bday:

Ah, but Joel got out, didn't he? Plus he's probably that famous 'exception' that proves the rule, don't you think? :lol:

All the issues you guys are bringing up are part of the reason that the very wise Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution a prohibition on tax on income. User fees are fine, a national sales tax would be fine, as long as we repeal the 16th Amendment at the same time. But think how much power that would take away from the Politicians. That's the real reason it is highly unlikely to ever happen.

Hope you have a great :bday:

There have been numerous reports of the IRS making errors on these, even if you use their own website to check how much they already got. That's beyond our control.

There is no such category as 'locked' topic. Do you mean 'closed' topic? A topic may be closed because it has gotten too long, and/or too repetitive, so that the moderators think that it serves us best if it is closed. It could be removed, but if it contains information that we think is valuable, we just close it instead. That way, you can find it when you use search, you just can not post to it. If you feel like you really NEED to post something new to it, you can always start a new thread to do that.