kcjenkins

It's good to know what they consider 'proof'. I have not had a single one of these, although I do know I will have a couple next year. I think I will ask for those things during the interview, and keep copies in my file.

How about this one. Dear Clients: The administration meant well, but the change in withholding is going to mess a lot of you up. Be prepared to pay next year, unless you adjust your withholding back to what it was before they changed it. this was not actually a tax change, just a withholding change. If you were happy with your refund or balance due this year, I recommend that you do change the withholding back to what it was before this change. Especially if you and your spouse both work. In that case, if you do nothing you will almost certainly owe.

And while a 3K faucet might seem on first glace to meet no. 2, what you have to look at there is does it increase substantially the value of the House, not the faucet. That is the asset in quesiton. If it's a 150K house with normal plumbing fixtures, and after the changes it is now a 151K house, that is not a substantial increase. After all, while a nice bathroom helps, it will not sell a house if the rest of the house does not match it.

How neat, a 'feminine' semi-automatic rifle. Cool.

Sounds like you might be able to get some help from GoldMoney itself. At least I would ask them first. Here's an interesting post on this issue from another board that was posted last July. "I just returned from an AICPA meeting of various tax committees, technical resource panels and task force groups. As some of you know, I'm a member of the International Tax Technical Resource Panel, Chair of a task force on reporting requirements for CFCs and a member of a task force on the TDF 90-22.1 form to report foreign financial accounts. We had some extensive discussions about this form and the AICPA will be making some recommendations to Congress to eliminate some of the unnecessary problems this form causes for tax preparers and their clients. In the course of our discussion, the Chair of the FBAR task force commented that a high ranking IRS manager has informed his field agents that they should demand at least 6 years of penalties for a failure to report their foreign accounts and/or any reports required for foreign corporations, partnerships, trusts, etc. The non-willful filing penalty can be waived by the IRS in the case of a reasonable cause for non-willful failure to file the form. But an IRS representative who is involved with administration of this form told our task force that not knowing about this form is no longer considered to be a reasonable cause for non filing and that not being informed by a tax preparer is no longer going to be considered a reasonable cause." Another interesting bit of data: IRS to Provide Quick Responses to FBAR Questions People with questions about Form TD F 90-22, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) can now get fast responses from the IRS via e-mail [ [email protected] ]. The IRS will answer questions relating to the preparation of an FBAR directly through e-mail. For questions relating to interpretive guidance of the Bank Secrecy Act regulations the IRS will send an immediate response containing the name and contact information of the employee who will handle the inquiry. Individuals wishing to provide comments or feedback on IRS services regarding FBAR forms are welcome to use the e-mail [ [email protected] ] address. The e-mail system will not accept actual FBAR forms. Account holders must still file those forms at: U.S. Department of the Treasury, P.O. Box 32621, Detroit, MI 48232-0621

Dave, are you saying he has had over $10K in that foreign bank account all three years? If so, he's screwed, unless he's in the Cabinet. The penalties are harsh, and the IRS is not at all forgiving on that one. It's going to be hard to get anyone to buy the idea that he has that much money overseas and did not even think to ask a professional if that made a difference or needed to be disclosed.

It's nutty isn't it, how hard it is to find that on the IRS website? You'd think there would be a fast link offered once you go into the Professionals link.

Thanks for the feedback. Not in my bank account yet, but I'll be looking for it.

Given the small amount involved, I would not amend. I'd just correct the balance and go forward. The IRS does not appreciated amendments that make miniscule changes but required them to do a lot of work to process them. Nor is it fair to the client to have to pay for them, but not fair to you to do them for free. I would correct the balance, no reason to have it continue to give you an error message.

:bday:

You might check out this one, Tom. http://tinyurl.com/cab5ts In Dec 2006, the Treasury Department issued Notice 2006-100. Long awaited final regulations were published on April 17, 2007. The IRS has since issued Notice 2007-86, which provides the final regulations will become effective (and the reasonable good faith compliance standard will expire) on January 1, 2009. Hope these cites help.

Let's all just wait a bit and see what they work out. I do know that they are trying to get it all sorted.

It is possible, actually, to get an early refund of overpaid estimated taxes. Not real fast, but it can be done. Call the IRS PRO helpdesk, explain the problem, and they can help you. I did not think so either, but did try for a client who had applied his overpayment to the next year, and then decided he needed it, and did not think he'd need the estimated amount against the next year, because of the §179 deduction on the equipment he wanted the refund to make a down payment on. It took about a month, but he did get the overpayment refunded.

:bday:

:bday:

http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=186222,00.html What is §409A? §409A was enacted in October 2004 and was generally effective on January 1, 2005. It applies to compensation that workers earn in one year, but that is paid in a future year. This is referred to as nonqualified deferred compensation. This is different from deferred compensation in the form of elective deferrals to qualified plans (such as a 401(k) plan) or to a 403( or 457( plan. How does coverage under §409A affect an employee’s taxes? If deferred compensation meets the requirements of §409A, then there is no effect on the employee’s taxes. The compensation is taxed in the same manner as it would be taxed if it were not covered by §409A. If the arrangement does not meet the requirements of §409A, the compensation is subject to certain additional taxes, including a 20% additional income tax. §409A has no effect on FICA (Social Security and Medicare) tax. What if the criteria in Notice 2008-62 are not met? On August 7, 2007, the IRS established assistance through Frequently Asked Questions on §409A and Deferred Compensation which provides guidance on how to establish the deferred election within the provisions of §409A. Resources for IRC §409A: Notice 2008-62, Interim Guidance on 10 vs. 12-month Pay Period IR-2007-142, August 7, 2007, New Rule Will Not Affect Teacher Salaries in Upcoming School Year Frequently Asked Questions on §409A and Deferred Compensation Notice 2007-86, Delayed Effective Date of §409A Requirements 409A Final Regulations Presentation Slides on 10 vs. 12-month Pay Period

http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-10208734-12.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/962007 http://www.microsoft.com/protect/computer/.../conficker.mspx

Well, of course it is up to the client if he wants to file it, but I am presuming that since he told Annie about it, he wants to 'do the right thing'. And yes, the client does have a "legal requirement to actually file an amended return" once he becomes aware that he filed a return that omitted taxable income. Now, if it is a small enough amount to make less than a $50 difference, as I'm guessing this does, I'd agree that not filing it would not bother me. I know that in an audit, such a small change would not be bothered with, and a no-change report would be issued, if that was the only change. But here, the client came to her about wanting to fix his error. So, given that, the 1040X would be the answer.

Strange, when I go to MyATX and click on the Communities link, it goes to the Welcome Back page, but then when I click on the button to go into the Community, it sends me back to the MyATX home page.

I just got off the phone with them right now, to get an answer. Seems that CCH is leaning on them pretty hard right now. So here's how it stands right now. If you bought in to TRX on the basis of getting ATX, [either version] and CCH backs out of their deal with TRX, then you will get a full refund from TRX. But it is not clear at this time if that is what will happen. TRX has a 5 yr contract with CCH, with 4 years remaining on it, so it is still possible that they will be able to provide the ATX package, as advertised. The head people are in a meeting over this right now. They will post here when a more complete answer is available.

Well, clearly, the correct thing to do is to file a 1040X, and a corrected Sch C, including the tips as income.

Another tax professional friend of mine sent me a link to her 230 rant. I loved it, so looked for any others she had posted. And knew you guys would love her too.

$662,850.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAdJLLmpWBU...feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNcYtpq8VsQ...feature=channel And a perfect 'Visualization' of Obama's promised 'budget trimming'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I28bksoCxi4...re=channel_page