kcjenkins

http://webcpa.com/article.cfm?articleid=24349&page=1 This article is worth your time to read, even if you are already doing it, even more so if you are thinking about it, or about expanding it.

The Tax Court has held in a series of cases that close isn't good enough here--see Norwood v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2000-84) where the court held that a "limited partnership must be created in the form prescribed by State law" in order for the partner to fall under §1402 (a)(13). Similar holdings are found in Cokes v. Commissioner 91 TC No. 19 and Anderson v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1990-461. Norwood also shoots down any §469 theory as well. Since an LLC is not even a partnership, just 'taxed as' one, and being a limited member in an LLC is NOT a "limited partnership created in the form prescribed by State law", I do not believe the rules you refer to apply to the LLC member. In an LLC, when is a member's interest "general" and subject to SE tax vs. "limited, and therefore exempt from SE tax? I think I found the best answer in a Proposed Regulation §1.1402(a)-2. Yes it's proposed, but it's all we got right now. It lays out three tests - the 500 hour requirement, personal liability, and the ability to contract on behalf of the partnership. ---------------------------- §1.1402(a)-2 Computation of net earnings from self-employment. * * * * * (d) * * * Except as otherwise provided in section 1402(a) and paragraph (g) of this section, an individual's net earnings from self-employment include the individual's distributive share (whether or not distributed) of income or loss described in section 702(a)(8) from any trade or business carried on by each partnership of which the individual is a partner. * * * * * * * * (f) (skipped) (g) Distributive share of limited partner. An individual's net earnings from self-employment do not include the individual's distributive share of income or loss as a limited partner described in paragraph (h) of this section. However, guaranteed payments described in section 707© made to the individual for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership engaged in a trade or business are included in the individual's net earnings from self-employment. (h) Definition of limited partner-- (1) In general. Solely for purposes of section 1402(a)(13) and paragraph (g) of this section, an individual is considered to be a limited partner to the extent provided in paragraphs (h)(2), (h)(3), (h)(4), and (h)(5) of this section. (2) Limited partner. An individual is treated as a limited partner under this paragraph (h)(2) unless the individual-- (i) Has personal liability (as defined in Section 301.7701-3((2)(ii) of this chapter for the debts of or claims against the partnership by reason of being a partner; (ii) Has authority (under the law of the jurisdiction in which the partnership is formed) to contract on behalf of the partnership; or (iii) Participates in the partnership's trade or business for more than 500 hours during the partnership's taxable year. ----------------------------

Glad to help.

Actually, the point there was that the trial was seen BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE, generally, as 'fair' because all the sides had equal input into the new constitution, and he had extensive representation from multiple attorneys, and a very lengthy trial in which he was allowed to question his accusers. Not like the kind of justice he handed out to his people when he was in power. Even his execution was much 'kinder' than the use of wood-chipping machines used as the method in his day.

I honestly do not see how asking that such 'loaded' words as 'fair', which are never defined, be left out of the debate, amounts to insulting you, Montana. I certainly did not intend to insult you. Still, it seems that this over-reaction just illustrates my point. I started out talking about the tax angles of the political debate, and asking for a non-judgmental discussion of it. Now I am being attacked as being unfeeling, uncaring, greedy, mean and disparaging. Oh yes, and a right-wing zealot, too. Clearly, I can't win, if even bringing it up means I am a bad person. Why is it that liberals like you can't just debate the issue, and instead have to attack the decency of anyone who does not agree with them? I did not attack anyone, here. I just raised a question. But, see, just as I said earlier, I am now declared to be UNFAIR for even asking that the issue of 'fairness' be left out of the debate, and instead, some actual measures be used instead. You sure proved my point. At least, LLBWest did not attack me personally, and did raise some real questions, which I promise you, LLB, I will address as soon as I have a few more minutes to respond. I respect him more because his response, while I see lots of problems with it, is at least in the nature of a debate, not a personal attack.

No, Montana, we WANT it all our way, just like they do. But we don't expect to get it all our way. However, we would at least like to be offered a chance to arrive at a middle ground of 'mutually acceptable' compromise. The use of the word 'FAIR' corrupts the whole debate, is my point. Because if one side is declared at the start to the 'the fair side', where is the room to even debate a compromise?

Both the GPs and the share of ordinary income from the LLC are subject to SE tax. So the loss should net with the GP, IF [big IF] they had 'basis' in the LLC. But since they have no basis, the loss is 'suspended', and the GP is all that will go to the SE.

Isn't it amazing how many folks keep falling for thses sort of things. I have a client who is now paying off a $4000 debt from one of those bogus cashier's check scams. That started with an email, too.

For Internet sites: Go to 'Tools', 'Internet Options', ''Security' then click on 'Trusted Sites'. Then click on 'Sites' and add the site to the 'trusted' list. For ATX Programs: Read the Knowledgebase Document ID 15969, 15714, and 9918.

John, thanks for that excellant source. That's one we all should take the time to read, since this is coming up more and more these days.

All tax software has changed a lot over the years, so I doubt if you can judge by what it was like 'years ago'.

I agree, Dr Sowell is one of my favorite columnists, because he makes so much sense. And this issue of the 'words' is an excellent example. For starters, challenge anyone who uses the word "fair" in a debate to use "mutually acceptable" instead. The word "fair" is one that is used to disarm an opponent through manipulation by guilt. No one wants to be considered UNFAIR. Yet there is no real definition of what 'fair' means. What I consider fair may not seem fair to you. Well, it probably will to you, John, but not to dear Grace & Peace Dave! If instead of talking about 'fair', we talk about 'mutually agreeable', we now have a standard to measure against. But then BOTH sides, conservative as well as liberal, must be considered. And that is not acceptable to most liberals. They do not WANT 'mutually acceptable' solutions, they want THEIR solutions, which they have simply declared to be 'fair' ones.

First, did he have more than $3000 loss? Any carryover? If so, net the refund with the carryover before you report anything as income. If not, then I'd report it on line 21.

It's worse than that, Peggy, many of them are teaching what they call Economics, but what they are teaching is the opposite of the truth. They are teaching that Capitalism is bad, and that only Government can protect 'the workers' from those nasty old 'Owners', aka 'Rich People'.

You are right, Peggy. I pointed out to someone yesterday, who was going off on the oil companies, that their profit was less than 10¢ a gal, but the fed and state taxes are over 45¢, and that does not even count the income taxes they pay on those profits. And that if they don't make profits, they will not have money to spend on finding new sources of oil, either. But her response was just, "Well, they are making too much money." Yet they contribute something critical to all of us, while movie stars and sports stars make a lot more, proportionately, and contribute much less, and hardly anyone has a problem with that. Her answer to that? "Well, but we don't have to buy tickets, and we do have to buy gas." She does not even see that her logic is exactly backwards. The more we need the product, the more important it is that they be allowed a profit for their labors! If we don't pay the stars, and they quit performing, no one but them is really hurt. But if we put the oil companies out of business with taxes and regulations that make what they do too risky, for not enough return on investment, we are all hurt. It's sad that so many people are so poorly educated that they can not understand that.

Ditto. Don, you're a valued member, hope your day is a very happy one. KC

Hillary outlined her economic fairness doctrine: “There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.” So, according to Hillary, free markets work best when they’re constrained by the "right" government policies. In other words, free markets work best when they’re not free. I find that really scary, myself. Sadly, tho, I think a lot of people will read or hear those lines of hers and think she is right. Because they will not really think about what she is implying. They will just react to the term 'fairness', something everyone wants. Not realizing that letting the government decide what is 'fair' is not really something they would want to do, based on past experience with government 'services'.

Ditto!

I love that one. :rolleyes:

Code Sec. 1043. Sale of property to comply with conflict-of- interest requirements -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (a) NONRECOGNITION OF GAIN If an eligible person sells any property pursuant to a certificate of divestiture, at the election of the taxpayer, gain from such sale shall be recognized only to the extent that the amount realized on such sale exceeds the cost (to the extent not previously taken into account under this subsection) of any permitted property purchased by the taxpayer during the 60-day period beginning on the date of such sale. ( DEFINITIONS For purposes of this section-- (1) ELIGIBLE PERSON The term "eligible person" means-- (A) an officer or employee of the executive branch, or a judicial officer, of the Federal Government, but does not mean a special Government employee as defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code, and ( any spouse or minor or dependent child whose ownership of any property is attributable under any statute, regulation, rule, judicial canon, or executive order referred to in paragraph (2) to a person referred to in subparagraph (A). (2) CERTIFICATE OF DIVESTITURE The term "certificate of divestiture" means any written determination-- (A) that states that divestiture of specific property is reasonably necessary to comply with any Federal conflict of interest statute, regulation, rule, judicial canon or executive order (including section 208 of title 18, United States Code), or requested by a congressional committee as a condition of confirmation, ( that has been issued by the President or the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, in case of executive branch officers or employees, or by the Judicial Conference of the United States (or its designee), in the case of judicial officers, and © that identifies the specific property to be divested. (3) PERMITTED PROPERTY The term "permitted property" means any obligation of the United States or any diversified investment fund approved by regulations issued by the Office of Government Ethics. (4) PURCHASE The taxpayer shall be considered to have purchased any permitted property if, but for subsection ©, the unadjusted basis of such property would be its cost within the meaning of section 1012. (5) SPECIAL RULE FOR TRUSTS For purposes of this section, the trustee of a trust shall be treated as an eligible person with respect to property which is held in the trust if-- (A) any person referred to in paragraph (1)(A) has a beneficial interest in the principal or income of the trust, or ( any person referred to in paragraph (1)( has a beneficial interest in the principal or income of the trust and such interest is attributable under any statute, regulation, rule, judicial canon, or executive order referred to in paragraph (2) to a person referred to in paragraph (1)(A). (6) JUDICIAL OFFICER. The term 'judicial officer' means the Chief Justice of the United States, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the judges of the United States courts of appeals, United States district courts, including the district courts in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Court of International Trade, Tax Court, Court of Federal Claims, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and any court created by Act of Congress, the judges of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior. © BASIS ADJUSTMENTS If gain from the sale of any property is not recognized by reason of subsection (a), such gain shall be applied to reduce (in the order acquired) the basis for determining gain or loss of any permitted property which is purchased by the taxpayer during the 60-day period described in subsection (a).

I wonder why they changed it's name?

Thanks for that site, it's a neat one.

Any donations are gratefully received, as Eric is doing this on his own nickle, as a gift to us all. You can donate through PayPal or by credit card, or you can mail him a check. Just click on the 'Donate' button at the top of the page, and it will tell you all the ways. I would urge all who use this site to donate at least a $1 to the pot. Just to let him know you appreciate his efforts. More if you feel able to do it, as this site will have to be funded all year, even though it will be used mainly during next tax season.

Hillary, in her speech this week, said she wants to "expand and simplify the earned income tax credit". Anyone have any thoughts about how this could be done, and how it would work? Personally, that scares me more than most of her tax-related quotes, most of which I doubt she can get passed. This one scares me because it might actually pass. And I can only see that 'simplifying' as increasing the amount of fraud.

Thanks for that, OldJack, it's never too late to learn something new. Not that I expect to need it, but then, it seems that everytime I say that, I find myself needing it in a short time.