kcjenkins

On 3/26/2016 at 5:33 PM, Terry D said:

Well just to add to my original post. Same guy stops by the other day and asks me to review a return that he prepared (again with paper and pencil) and the 2014 return that he again prepared in the same manner. This is NOT his return or information. I did ask him if these folks gave him permission to let me see this information. He said Oh yes no problem. I did ask for these folks phone number. Should I call them before I review this mess? From what he told me, and I tried to ignore everything as I warned him he shouldn't be discussing this with me, he has screwed up these folks return and shorted them money on refunds both years. Again, I am only guessing here as I haven't looked at this stuff yet. What would other do?

Before someone chimes in with "charge him dearly", believe me he will be paying for this one even if it is for wasting my time.

Terry, no way would I touch those returns without talking to the people involved.  Those are not HIS returns to make decisions about, just because he prepared them.  HE does not have a legal right to show them to you, or anyone else.   

Incredible to see how the mother instinctively cradles the young croc in her mouth to keep it out of harm's way.

52 minutes ago, Juan Carlos said:

I understand Judy.  It would take to much time adding client and details when I just want confirmation or correction that needs to be made.

Thank you,

Understand what you are saying, but given the complex nature of your subject, more detail is sometimes called for.  To the question, I don't think you should be doubling the credit.  Perhaps there is a box you missed checking?  Or checked and shouldn't.  With ATX, I've often found that they deal with complex issues with check boxes, and almost always, when a result does not make sense, or "feel right", I find the problem there.   Let us know, please, if you find it there.

Only half?

I wonder, if the IRS was allowed to have a policy of giving a one time "Directed No Change" to anyone who brings in such a return, where the deductions are clearly bogus, and agrees to testify at the preparer's trial, wouldn't that lead to a huge reduction in this sort of scam?  Right now, the preparer plays the 'audit odds' game knowing that the clients, as co-conspirators in many cases,  will not want to expose him/her.   What do you think?

It's amazing how obsessed everyone's become with their phones, playing with their phones all the time -- at restaurants, movies, gym (so I've heard), while driving, eating, walking, talking.

The other day I was at a funeral when the person next to me asked me, "Rabbi, what's the wifi password at the cemetery?"

I told him, "Have some respect for the dead!"

"Thank you Rabbi," the person replied.

After a pause, he asked, "Is that all lower case?"

A lawyer and a blonde woman are sitting next to each other on a long flight. The lawyer asks if she would like to play a fun game. The blonde is tired and just wants to take a nap, so she politely declines and tries to catch a few winks.
The lawyer persists, that the game is a lot of fun. "I ask you a question, and if you don't know the answer, you pay me only $5; you ask me one, and if I don't know the answer, I will pay you $500." This catches the blonde's attention and, to keep him quiet, she agrees to play the game.

The lawyer asks the first question: "What's the distance from the earth to the moon?" The blonde doesn't say a word, reaches in to her purse, pulls out a $5 bill, and hands it to the lawyer.

Now, it's the blonde's turn. She asks the lawyer, "What goes up a hill with three legs, and comes down with four?"

The lawyer uses his laptop, searches all references. He uses the Airphone; he searches the Net and even the Library of Congress. He sends e-mails to all the smart friends he knows, all to no avail. After a good hour of searching he finally gives up. He wakes up the blonde and hands her $500. The blonde takes the $500 and goes back to sleep.

The lawyer is going nuts not knowing the answer. He wakes her up and asks, "Well, so what goes up a hill with three legs and comes down with four?" The blonde reaches into her purse, hands the lawyer $5 and goes back to sleep.

On 3/23/2016 at 3:37 PM, Elrod said:

It's Started...........

Taken in my yard today............................

I agree with Judy, as a gift it's based on the giver's basis, not the basis of the person she bought it from.  

Have not researched this, but my SWAG is the cash value at the time of the donation.  

I would not know how to allocate that $53 between cost of normal haircut vs donation value, unless the 'normal' haircut cost, say, $45, and the shop charged the extra $8 for collecting the hair.  And really, even if you deducted the entire $53 it's highly unlikely to move the dial on the A.  

Yes, really how much a person DONATES is and should be, up to them.  Some few might feel they never really benefited and don't feel a need to donate.  Someone else might feel like this board saved them from a really bad goof, and it's worth a serious donation.  Many will be somewhere between, valuing it as a critical resource.  Please Eric, let us make that decision.  We love and appreciate you, you know?

Very pretty !  

17 hours ago, TAXMAN said:

A client brought me 3 choc covered peanut butter eggs(homemade) that must weigh a lb each. If I going for Cadbury I want the Big ones.

Lucky you.

Nope.  

Just blame it on the IRS, due to their "complicated rules for educational assistance grants."   That's close enough. 

Yes, that's what I'd do.  But I'd put the whole amount, as 'received from  Estate of ....'  then subtract the payments off as 'paid to bene...'  

If that confuses the IRS, they will send the client a letter, you respond with the simple explanation, and that ends it.  Most likely you never hear a peep about it.  But everything has been disclosed so your client is in the clear.

Yes. 

Gee, for such a small amount, it would be so tempting to just follow Jack's advice.  But the fact that the client did not make that choice, but brought it to you, means you have to deal with it.  After all,  should this not be handled properly, the IRS can come after the executor.  Would they, over such a tiny amount?  Highly doubtful.  So my next question is, who got the money?  If there is only one bene, I'd show it on his return, on line 21, as nominee.  If there were more than three, who each got their share, I'd follow Jack's plan.  Either way, I would not try to revive the estate for that amount.  

So sorry, because it is SO funny.  Here is the youTube link.  

Clear up one question, please.  Did they receive the cash, as well as the  1099R?  

Once it TRULY became rental property it loses all 'personal residence' characteristics, both pro and con.  So if sold at a profit, you know that the gain exclusion would not apply.  Same thing for a loss.  So yes, it's a LTCL.   Now, if they 'converted' it three months before the sale, no doubt the IRS would argue, rightly, that this was a ploy to convert a personal loss to a deductible one.  But not when it was a rental for 7 years !

That seems like the smart choice, to me.  Much less chance of a later problem for the client.  

12 hours ago, NECPA in NEBRASKA said:

I'm scared to death to have one now that I work at home. There is really no place for me to put anyone else in my office. I would have to stick them out in the family room with the treadmill and they would have to use the bathroom/laundry room with the cat boxes. 

Sounds like a perfect place, actually.