kcjenkins

You're welcome. They have been sending out a lot of these, computer generated, of course. You would think they could get this right, since it was clearly reported on the returns.

I believe the continuing payments would have to be treated as either income or an offset of COGS, as received, not part of the cost of the building or lot, etc.

When you have a clear expectation of receiving an inheritance or a court settlement, you have to disclose that fact, if you are asking for an installment agreement, for example. But as for the question of whether you are insolvent at a point in time, only an asset that has an actual determinable value at that point is considered. So if there is a serious question about the amount he is due to receive, he could not, at that point, convert it to cash by selling the future stream, for example. So it would not make him solvent, at that point, unless the amount is 'reasonably certain'. So the real question is, is there any question that he will, in fact, receive the amount, or is there serious doubt as to the amount? If so, it does not count. But if in fact there are plenty of assets to be distributed, and there is no real question as to his being able to collect, he's merely having to wait for the process to be completed, then you do. If there is any doubt, you need to CYA with a letter from the attorney or executor as to his status and expectations.

I don't believe this exists, although I'm interested in any thing you find on it. I'm pretty sure that they could not make a tax break for Presidential appointees, per sa. And the person is not being 'forced' to sell, he is making a choice to do this in order to take the job. But what he could do without tax cost is to put the shares into a qualified blind trust, instead.

So basically, they are going to merge the TaxWise and ATX products into one line. That is, I think, a good thing for the users. Because it means that they are keeping the lower cost line, and that they are even trying to improve it. I'm glad to see that, since it's still the best bargain for my type of practice on the market right now.

You are correct, and the IRS is sending out a lot of these. Just respond and show them the worksheet, and that should take care of it.

No, but the Cohan case was cited in it, and that was what I was interested in.

You're welcome. Since that is something that comes up every now and then, I like to keep up with when and how it is cited, as over time the courts tend to shift direction now and then.

I agree with that, although I'd ask for 5 years, if they had been here that long.

Remember the famous quote often attributed to Churchill, although he probably did not say it, it's still a good one. "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."

This was posted on TaxTalk today. I suspect some of you will want to add it to your "Cohen Case Files" list. Someone mentioned Cohan a few weeks ago. See Nguyen v. Comm, T. C. Summary Opinion 2007-80 which was filed May 23, 2007. Cohan v. Comm, 39 f.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930) was referred to in this case. You may get a point or two from the current case if you still have a question. Harold C. Ingram, CPA

Amen to that!

Tom, if you use the NOL carry-forward worksheet, it should show the new NOL added and the remainder of the old NOL carried forward, and combine them, with none of it used in 05. I always attach that worksheet as a 'supporting document' with the 1045. On the 1045 itself, yes, I show the same amount in both columns.

That is correct, which was one reason I directed him to read Pub 536. I really think he needs to do some study before he even thinks about trying these returns. But everyone has to start somewhere, and having a real life example to work with is the best way. And getting paid at the end of a learning experience makes it even better! And doing it now, with less time pressure, is a good thing. Blady, feel free to come back with questions once you get through reading those pubs. There are lots of people here who are happy to help a newbie. As long as you want to learn and expand you are welcome here.

I guess we all tend to occasionally leave out obvious factors when posing questions, simply because WE already know that answer, and don't want to make the question too long. But it's a valid point you raise, Jainen. Although many of us are old friends on this board or the old one, and I do think that we can cut just a little slack when reading a post from someone we know to be competent, still the posts are also going to be read by others who may be much newer and greener. So it's a good thing to remember when posting that we should mention all the 'critical' factors which we know, for the sake of not confusing those newbies.

The only thing I have seen that makes me even want to consider one is the bit in the latest Popular Science about using the 'built-in' features of Vista that lets you use your computer as a sort of super TIVO. That bit about automatically eliminating ads when recording, for example. And that would be personal, not for the business.

No, you are totally misunderstanding the NOL rules. First of all, you do not limit the loss in the year it occurs. It's reported in full on the 1040, and then IF you make the ELECTION to forgo the carry-back period, the remaining NOL, as calculated on the NOL worksheet, is carried forward to the next year. You need to read Pub 536 before you do anything else. Also, read Pub 4492 for information on the Hurricane tax relief. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p4492/ix01.html

Actually, Bob, he'd have been a better president if he HAD been a Do Nothing, but in fact he did a lot of things, mostly bad things! He elevated the terrorist Arafat,and gave him our protection, he turned Iran from an ally to an enemy, he gave control of the Panama Canal to [indirectly] China, he gave us the highest inflation rate and lowest unemployment [at the same time] in history, he.... Well, enough thinking of the Carter years, it gives me heartburn just remembering. Anyway, I caught your humor in turning his words that way. Glad to see that I am not the only one who saw the irony in the man who really WAS the worst president in the last 70 years, and maybe in History, calling the current president that.

You should be able to find some info on TaxAct on both this site and on the TaxProExchange group site. It's been discussed pretty throughly there. Not for those who have clients with business entities, etc.

Come on, Jainen, the guy makes $55,000, and we are supposed to ask if he is a dependent? No way can he make that much and be anyone's dependent. The Niece is 2 years old, and we are supposed to ask if she is self-supporting? I think if she was a famous child star Pacun might have mentioned that. After all, he did clearly say the the "Brother supports sister and niece." The only thing in your post that I see as valid questions are the issues of citizenship and [hinted at] whether the father of the child has any claim. And since we all know Pacun here, it seems to me safe to assume he has considered those issue.

Wayne, I think it will probably work fine on most setups, but that they are just protecting themselves from those cases where someone's setup, for what ever reason, does not. In other words, it's a CYA statement, merely meaning that they are not going to go back and try to re-engineer any problems that might show up down the road, on the old programs. As mentioned several times, most of those should be fixable by merely using the built-in reverse compatibility of the platform. Just as we now, on XP, can run old DOS programs by selecting 'run as Win95' on the compatibility tab.

Fred Thompson, I don't think Fred Flintstone is eligible, although I could be wrong on that. And yes, I guess it is redundant, but what's a little redundancy among friends, Bob?

I come up with a loss of 442.64, Eli.

I think every sane and alert adult in this country must be upset with both sides by now. I know I am. While I don't agree with all of your points, as I am sure you don't agree with all of mine, we do agree that none of them are really doing what they promised to do if elected. I'm more upset about Bush's immigration stands, and still think it's better to fight the terrorists over there than over here. But it seems to me, Bush is making it easier for them to come on over here than he should be. And the Dem's aren't offering any real options, either. They would rather stand around finding ways to attack Bush and his appointees than to offer some real solutions. And Pelosi likes to talk about Republican corruption, but she can't see it when it's in her own party. As long as she is protecting Jefferson and such, and demanding bigger planes while she blames pollution on Bush, and blames high gas prices on Bush but blocks every reasonable and currently available domestic energy source, I will choose to ignore her opinions. And I am so sick of these wimps, on both sides, who say, 'we have to come up with alternative fuel sources to replace oil" as their argument against drilling here, whether it be off-shore, Anwar, or other 'protected' sources. Get real. Those things may be developed, but they are not here NOW, and we have to deal with the need now. Clearly anyone with half a brain knows that there are lots of people working on a workable alternative, and as soon as it is invented, we will move in that direction. In the meantime, we should be working on being less dependent on foreign oil. But us sane people also know that most of the 'hybrid cars' that were pushed so hard turned out to not be much more efficient, or clean, than the normal cars. So we want solutions that work NOW, as well as research for the future. And we see that the so-called 'Green' pols don't want that 'clean' energy to disturb THEIR lifestyles. They want to drive their Hummers and Suburbans, fly their private planes, block wind farms that would interfere with their sailing or intrude into their view, etc. They just don't want the ordinary folk, who can not afford all that, to have a choice. I'm about ready to say "a pox on both their houses", but really, that will not work either, because we have to live with what we elect. So I'm going to look real hard at the choices and then work hard to get my choices elected. I just wish Fred would hurry up and get into the race! :lol:

I also got the same e-mail, offering the contest if we renew in May. Chance to win $3K, or $2K, or $1K. Hey, SOMEONE is going to win it. And actual odds depend on the number who renew within the deadline. Could be better than they estimate. By the way, I also got THIS email today: “We are pleased to offer you special pricing, and lock that pricing in for three years! Simply show us your ATX price renewal, and we will meet you halfway between your old renewal and Ultra Tax CS renewal prices. And we will not increase those prices for three years!” So they are all playing the game in their own way. What Ultra Tax is not saying is that to match my ATX package form for form, Ultra Tax renewal price would be somewhere in the $6000 to $8000 range – maybe higher. So their meeting me half-way would still cost me $3000 to $5000 or more per year – WITHOUT any price increases. ATX, even with all of its blemishes, still looks like the best option for MY buck this year. And I know, too, that there will be other 'special offers' made to us next year, to convert.