kcjenkins

No, a day trader reports the income on the 4797. and the business expenses on a C. So that C will always show a loss.

Hope you have a great :bday:

Very :bday:

It is not a Form, it is an election. And it must be filed by the due date of their tax return, for the year preceding the Section 475 election year. So if you file it now, it would be effective for the 2011 tax year, because it is too late to elect it for 2010, that had to be done by 4/15/09. You can find the election in the Elections form. Go to the 1040 tab at the bottom, and it is the 8th item. Don't let the wording of that election fool you. It does NOT go into effect for the "current year". Read http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb97-07.pdf and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb05-24.pdf and, of course, §475 itself.

It probably is not a big problem, but it's also easy to add an extra cable so that she can plug in rather than use the wireless.

have a :bday:

I would not use a wireless network for tax work, due to security issues. I'd use a wired network. It's easy to connect two computers with a network cable.

Well, Tom, I'm gong to chime in on the other side, sort of. It MIGHT be that the Chairman screwed up, but I'd first want to know how the donee cashed the check. I agree that it should have gone through the church account, to be deductible. But I'd want to look at the endorsements on the check. If the Church, through it's officer, endorsed the check, and the Church gives him a letter acknowledging the gift, then I'd take it. So I'd ask to see the canceled check, and also ask about acknowledgment from the church. Just because he talked to the Chairman about someone he knew needed help is certainly not the same as as controlling where the money went. He made the check out to the Church fund. And only added the name after he was asked to, after he had already committed to the gift without strings. That is not prohibited. Any more than giving to any other Church fund-raising event, where all the donors know what the money is going for.

In general, the partnership does not usually die unless at least half the partners change in the partnership. But there can be lots of qualifiers to that, depending on the partnership agreement and state laws as well.

First of all, it depends on what she inherited. If she got money, it would not be taxable, with the exception of any interest it earned between the DOD and the time it was distributed to her. If she got stocks, for example, the dividends would be taxable but the value of the stocks at DOD would not be taxable, but would be recorded as her basis in them when she sells them. If she got real estate, it would not be taxable but any money earned from it, such as rents, would be taxable. And the value, for depreciation, would be the FMV at the time she inherited it. If she inherited real estate which she just kept for her own use, it would not be taxable until she sells it, and her basis when she sells it would be that FMV at the time she inherited it. However, as sometimes happens, the only asset in the estate of the deceased is real estate, and it is valuable enough that there are taxes due on the estate. In this situation, sometimes the heirs chose to pay those taxes so that none of the property has to be sold to pay the tax. In such a case, each heir pays their share of the estate tax. But if there was money to pay the estate tax, or the estate value is low enough that no estate tax was due, then the property comes to them without being taxed, and it's value is 'stepped up' to the FMV as of the DOD or alternate valuation date.

:bday:

I'll be praying for you, Kea.

Actually, I expect we [this board] are the real cause of the problem. Not intentionally, of course. But I think that TRX saw this board as not an official ATX board, which is true, so assumed they could post on here that they were selling ATX now without it being the same as running an ad advertising the fact in a way that was in violation of the 're-branding' rule. They may not have realized that CCH is familiar with, and monitors, this board. And that they would see the posts here from Braden and Chris as being a violation of the contract. I can see arguments on both sides.

Glad it helped. It's a shame that some users expect the software to do everything, because if it could, they would not need us. I expect some of those programs that cost 4K and up do 'remind' the user, automatically, to check this sort of thing, but I don't feel the need to pay that much extra just so that I don't have to bother to check this sort of thing.

$120K/6 = 20K price of home apartment. Credit is not divided by six, the price is. Then the credit is calculated based on that price of the single apartment.

Steve, I think you are wrong about the 'other software'. Although some of them might offer a 'reminder to check', that should be the most they do. It's like the folks who complain that the estimated payments they set up don't roll over automatically. Actually, they do, but are not 'activated' until you input the payment dates. Because often clients either miss a payment, change the amount they pay in, or pay it late. All factors that we need to input, in order not to make things worse than they would be if we omitted claiming the payment. Omitting it will only cause them to get a bigger refund. Claiming it when it was not made will mean they owe more, with penalty and interest as well. Claiming the amount they were SUPPOSED to pay last year is the same thing. If they did not pay it, or did not pay it until after year end, you have a problem. This is one of those things that can not be 'automated', simply because our clients are not robots, who do as we tell them. Some times they do pay it, usually, I think. But I believe this is one of the things that it is up to US to check out each year, with any client that owed state tax last year. I make a list, each year, in September usually, of all my clients who owed state tax, by putting checks by them and then going to Reports, and then Print Marked Client List. I keep that list on a pullout surface on my desk, ans check it now and then to be sure I check it with any client who may have some tax to add on the A.

Just tell them right at the start that '"this is a Wedding, I'm not talking any tax today". and then repeat any time anyone tries to get any free tax advice from you.

They told me they had a signed 5 year contract, with 4 years to go, so they should have OK for the 09 year and three more after that. No one can plan further than a couple of years, anyway, when it comes to tax software.

Yes, that is the status now, I understand. CCH is not happy with TRX. Actually, I think the problem was not with TRX reselling ATX, the error TRX made was using the NAME to sell it to current users. They were supposed to 're-brand' it, as they do with TaxWise, as TRX-AX and not use the official brand name. They came on the Unofficial ATX Community board and posted "TRX IS NOW OFFERING ATX MAX FOR $299 AND ATX TTO FOR $699" and that is when the excrement hit the oscillating blades. If they do get sued, which I doubt, but you never know with CCH, it will be for that advertising, not for the price. The 'marginal cost' of another copy of the software is maybe $15 with shipping. The program cost is the same to write it whether you sell 100 copies or 10,000. With the sort of deal we are talking about here, TRX provides the support, so there is very little 'cost' to CCH as long as the sales do not cut into the sales of the product at full cost. That is where the 're-branding' comes in. Kraft, for example, sells its premium catsup under it's name,.but sells it's excess capacity under other names, with very little difference except the label on the package. They know that those sales will not have a significant impact on the sales of their brand name product. But if you KNEW that 'Sunrise Catsup' was the same as "Kraft Catsup' then it might well effect your purchase decision.

I wonder if the parents realize that they are going to have to pay tax on their profit, recapturing the depreciation they took while they were 'renting' it?

:bday: to you.

Of course not. Because they still work. Some people still send a check without ever doing more than glancing at the 'bill'. As long as it is profitable to print them up and send them out, they will continue. Because they have been taken to court a few times, but the are actually "legal" as long as they do print up a 'phone book' with the ads, and distribute them in the area, whether it is worthless or not.

If people will 'borrow' kids to get a couple of thousand of bogus EIC money, how much easier to get $8000 just by claiming to buy a house? You can be sure that a bunch of the crooks did that. And some bogus preparers no doubt saw an easy way to make some big money by filing a bogus 5405?

Expect to see this in more states soon, as any time the con men come up with a new 'angle' they quickly spread it to more locations. This is the same sort of thing that used to be done by mail. Remember the bogus 'Yellow page ad renewal notices" that used to be so common? You had to look hard to see the notice in tiny print "This is a solicitation" As long as suckers will fall for these things, con artists will continue to use them. The electronic age just makes it easier for them to spread them far and wide.

First, the second question. Yes, indeed there are actually several levels of 'assisted living' facilities. Often different parts of the same overall operation. Sometimes separate, but with the buy-in to one, you get the right to move to the higher care unit when it becomes necessary. As for the first, yes, if he meets the tests, then a portion of his half of the cost would qualify. Actually, the whole point of those places is that you are paying more than a normal apartment or home would cost to rent, because you are getting the availability of the extra care services. And even if the wife was providing a lot of the care, no doubt she was relying on some of those services, such as help lifting him, transporting him to the doctor, possibly medical monitoring such as blood pressure checks, blood tests as needed, etc. It's a sad but true fact that as we age, we start needing more help to do things as simple as getting out of bed, etc. Then we need modifications to allow room for a wheel chair, etc, and then ..........well, you get the idea. The extra cost to meet these needs is an allowable medical deduction, even tho a lot of it is not directly "medical" in nature.