kcjenkins

And there is this one: And who has time for Circular 230 nonsense this time of year much less Section 7216 disclosure crap. Don't rely on anything I write, think, speak or gesticulate to avoid penalties - rely on yourself and stand up to the fascist threat Circular 230 poses. (and yeah, this probably expresses my contempt for all such "regulation" both in its intent and in the extra, unnecessary, and wholy ridiculous effect it has on me, you, and our clients, to say nothing of the various landfills into which all such dead tree matter undoubtedly makes its way - so sue me.)

I rather like this one: Circular 230 disclosure - penalties, what penalties? You mean to tell me that there are such things as penalties? Well sling my arrows of outrageous misfortune - what will they think of next? Don't rely on me to avoid penalties - I'm unreliable in that regard.

No, I would not post this, because while the first part is good, [and Atticus posted it a week or so ago] the second part, where he starts listing taxes, is a bit bogus. Some of those taxes existed almost from the start of the country, like the Property Tax and Real Estate Tax. Others did not exist then because the item taxed did not exist then, such as telephone taxes, auto taxes, etc. No one likes all the taxes, but we have most of them because people wanted the revenue to fund some program that they wanted. Or because [in the case of the so-called 'sin taxes' like on cigarettes or booze] we wanted to discourage the use of something.

You should not assume, ask the client if he has paid any in 08.

The mileage should be deductible as UPE, in my opinion. And since she still owns the van, as I understood it, and still paying the expenses on it, it too would be UPE. She might be smart to transfer ownership to the partnership to increase her basis, and also to let the partnership take over expenses on the van, if it is being used totally for that business.

There is no time limit on the §121 divorce rules. But I would wonder about the situation where he's getting rent from her now. Seems like he has converted his half of the house into rental property, doesn't it? Hmmmmm I'd have to think about that one for a while.

Think of it as a sale, for the amount that was canceled by the reposition. The Pub on handling this is pretty good, I'd follow the example in there.

Well, having once been a landlord who's property was trashed [even to the extent of defecating in the closets, taking not just the light bulbs but the light fixtures ripped out of the ceiling, etc] I'd have no problem with expensing any repair. Now, having said that, if they decided to make MAJOR changes to the building, that would be depreciated. But even though it may seem like a lot of money, if the carpet, for example, that is replaced was good carpet until the tenets destroyed it, it's still a repair, not an improvement that would be capitalized. I'd say that you should be flexible, and sensitive to the situation, and give your client the benefit of the doubt where possible. Perhaps there is a reasonable compromise that you can both accept?

If the oil company bought an easement, it would reduce basis. But if, instead, as seems to be the case here, they are merely renting the right-of-way for a period of time, without any ownership change, then it would be treated as rent.

Actually, I have found the surest way to end that sort of comments is to look them straight in the face, pause briefly, and say in a very quite but serious voice, "Actually, I find that comment personally insulting. I study year-round to keep up with tax law so that I can do the best possible job for my clients, at considerable expense of time and money both." Then just wait. After a startled moment of embarrassment, the apology will pour out, in almost every case. If it does not, that will be the last return I do for that client. So far, the times I have used it, I've never had one not apologize. Or repeat anything like it ever again. And I only lost one client over doing that, in all my 37 years in business. Oh, yeah, it also feels really good to do it !!!!!

Since they owned it jo8intly, they should have been splitting it all along. But I'd tell the inactive brother to just show the sale on Sch D, as 'investment property', and take his loss. And I'd have my client show the sale on the 4797, by using the disposition tab in the asset entry form.

And you can sort any column that way, by just clicking at the top. Click twice to reverse sort. So if you want to sort amount billed click on the top, you will get it sorted low to high. Click again, it will be sorted high to low. Ditto for AGI., etc.

No, they are not. H-1B costs are typically paid by the employer as a cost of recruiting. and clearly deductible under immigration law, by the employer. Individuals can not apply for an H1B visa to allow them to work in the US. The employer must petition for entry of the employee. Immigration costs are specifically disallowed as expenses incurred by the employee (and the self-employed); amounts paid by an employer are deductible to the extent they apply to staff recruitment (visa application fees and attorney costs). And the cost of obtaining what is necessary to work for the first time is not deductible, (except for qualified education costs) because these types of deductions are claimed as business expense or employee business expense and the taxpayer was not an employee or in a trade or business when the expenses occurred. But that is not the only problem. The real problem is with the nature of the expenses. Personal legal expenses are not deductible. § 262. In United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S. 39 (1963), the Supreme Court established the test to determine whether legal expenses are business or personal. The Court held that deductibility depends on the origin and the character of the claim with respect to which the legal expenses were incurred, rather than the potential consequences that might result to the taxpayer's profit-seeking activity as a result of the decision.

Yes, each of them gets to treat their half as §121 sale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg You got to watch this one, no matter what your politics you will get a laugh out of this one.

The CCC income would go on either Sch F Line 6a or 4835 Line 3a. The gift, if it was to the organization, should have some documentation. If it was directly to an individual, he's out of luck, but if it was through a qualified organization, he should be able to get a letter from them. Without it, he's out of luck.

Carried forward until used. Or until you die, when it dies with you.

Yes, John is right, that exclusion is too small to be worth changing an estimate for, especially since there are so many ways that it might not really reduce their tax liability in the end. If anyone asks me, I'm going to tell them to assume it will all be taxable, because if it is not, they will be a bit better off at year end, but if it is, they will not be owing when they are already hurting. And if they just trust me to calculate the ES, I will ignore it.

Yes, have him ask his bankruptcy attorney if he should do this. But Bankruptcy attorneys are notoriously bad at tax law, so do not rely on them for that. If he is in bankruptcy, however, he should have the insolvency defense on the debt, which ever way it goes. The Bank's goal is to get it closed out faster, most likely.

Well, we're all pretty busy right now, but at least all these changes are good for business. Even tho people are not as positive as usual, they still appreciate the need for good tax advice, especially now. Lots of questions about what to do with retirement accounts, etc. I'm glad everything is going well for you.

Well, like I say, if we change the makeup of the House SIGNIFICANTLY in two years, we can get a bunch of this spending stopped, since a lot of it is not for several years anyway. It will be up to the people to be wiling to make major changes, but it can be done. But we better get off the politics of it, don't want to start a new fight.

Most states do not allow owners to claim it, but a few do, if it was paid. Worth checking in to. Try calling them and asking who is exempt from paying it. If they say 'owners are exempt', then you know they are not covered by it.

Actually, the correct phrase is "Useless as teats on a Boar hog". But the funny part of that is that hog breeders consider the number of teats on the boars to be important, since you want sows with a full supply of teats, and it's a proven fact that boar hogs with more teats produce offspring with more teats. And since pigs have from as little as 6 up to 30 teats, and often have litters in proportion to their teats, you can see why this is important. Oh, by the way, the forward teats on a sow are more productive than the hind ones---hence that old American phrase, "sucking the hind tit." Just a bit of left-over knowledge from my hog-raising days.

:wub: Gee, now I am embarrassed. JB, I bet if we met and talked, we'd both end up having a good time, and agreeing a lot more than we'd disagree. Of course, I bet that MontanaEA and I would also find things to be friends over! I freely admit to climbing on a soapbox, from time to time. Not as often as I am tempted to do, but still, maybe more than I should. But, gosh, folks, these are SERIOUS issues, that are going to affect not just us, but our grandchildren and even great-grandchildren. I feel we do need to talk about them, work out in our own minds possible ideas for dealing with them, and spread our educated thoughts on tax policy, especially. After all, the average Joe knows almost nothing about the tax code, he just wants to pay his fair share but no more, and he wants the government to treat him fairly. But unless a LOT of people raise a lot of commotion with the idiots in DC [both sides of the aisle have lots of idiots] nothing will get changed. The 'folks' wanted CHANGE, that is one of the major reason Obama won. But did they have any idea what sort of change they would get? I doubt it. Is the 'change' we are getting right now the change YOU wanted? If so, you are happy, and should care not at all for my opinion. If it is not the change you wanted, then lets talk about how to correct it, and how to ask for the right kind of change. And I promise to try not to get on the soapbox too often, and to label it when I do. And thank you, to those of you who posted such nice things about me. :wub:

It should not cost her anything, unless she has written checks in expectation of getting it, which she should not have done. But it will be a week or two extra. Good thing it was her fault for not telling you.