kcjenkins

That's my reading of the code, David. They get the cap gain.

Thanks for fixing the link, Judy.

Good manners is the most basic rule we insist on here. No one should be treated rudely for either asking or answering a question. Even if someone gives a wrong answer, the correction should be made politely. As long as I am a mod here, that will be enforced, I promise.

WOW, I'M JUST AWED AT SOMEONE DOING ALL THAT DRAWING!

totally agree. This is one of those. "How to make a clarinet from a carrot"

I hope I don't wear out my / key. /s

That's why you need an appointment, where you don't ask 'yes or no' questions, mostly. You ask for specifics, dates, documentation, etc. And most of us are pretty good at spotting the evasions, don't you think? Like when they find their answer on the ceiling?

Sounds really good to me. I like the idea that you have to 'earn' admission by contributing to the tax board, too. Maybe change the name General Chat to Tax Chat? How would new members learn of the Private Chat forum?

http://www.woofipedia.com/articles/dr.-seuss-quotes-depicted-by-dogs

Yeah, they do find lots of ways to screw up their own situation. On the other hand, that is why they need us!

NOT YOU, MARILYN! I was referring to Jack's comment. Yes, it's public, and yes, non-professionals do browse here, but if they try to actually RELY ON a statement they see here, that has no cite, no reference to look up, etc, they ARE 'silly'. Jack's just trying to be more protective of them than I think they deserve. He's just nicer than me, I guess. I love him anyway. You too. So don't take it wrong, please.

Washington, D.C. (August 13, 2014) By Michael Cohn The Federal Trade Commission said it is mailing more than $16 million in refund checks to 18,571 consumers who had paid money to American Tax Relief, a company that allegedly bilked financially distressed consumers by falsely claiming it could reduce their tax debts. Under a settlement that the FTC reached last year, American Tax Relief turned over millions of dollars in assets the court had frozen, including bank accounts, jewelry and a Ferrari. The parents of one of the defendants also turned over bank accounts, jewelry, a Beverly Hills residence and a Los Angeles condominium. The FTC said last week that affected consumers would receive, on average, 16 percent of the amount they lost. Those who receive checks from the FTC’s refund administrator should cash them within 60 days of the mailing date. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or to provide information before refund checks can be cashed. Those with questions should call the refund administrator, Gilardi & Co., LLC, at 1-(877) 430-3699, or visit www.FTC.gov/refunds for more general information. Under last year’s settlement order, American Tax Relief LLC and its leader, Alexander Seung Hahn, were banned from telemarketing, and they and Hahn’s wife, Joo Hyun Park, were permanently prohibited from selling debt relief services. As part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers in financial distress, this was the agency’s first action against a tax relief company. A number of other tax relief companies have also run afoul of regulators and state attorney generals in recent years after advertising their IRS tax resolution services to consumers and been forced to shut down, including TaxMasters, JK Harris and “Tax Lady” Roni Deutch (see TaxMasters Goes Bankrupt, JK Harris Goes Out of Business and ‘Tax Lady’ Roni Deutch Pleads Guilty). The FTC originally filed charges against American Tax Relief, Hahn, and Park in September 2010. A court subsequently halted the allegedly illegal practices, froze the defendants’ assets, and appointed a receiver to manage the company pending resolution of the case. In August 2012, the court entered partial summary judgment in favor of the FTC, finding that the defendants falsely claimed they already had significantly reduced the tax debts of thousands of people and falsely told individual consumers they qualified for tax relief programs that would significantly reduce their tax debts. The court found Hahn personally liable for the challenged practices. The 2013 settlement order imposed a $103.3 million judgment against ATR, Hahn, and Joo Hyun Park. It also imposed judgments of $18 million and $595,000, respectively, against relief defendants Young Soon Park and Il Kon Park, Joo Park’s parents, who were not charged with participating in the scheme but were found by the court to have received significant sums. At the time, the FTC said the judgments would be suspended once the defendants and relief defendants have surrendered assets that total more than $15 million, including cash, a home in Beverly Hills and a condo in Los Angeles, jewelry and gold items, and a 2005 Ferrari. The order also prohibited ATR, Hahn, and Park from misrepresenting material facts about any products or services, collecting payments from the scheme’s customers, selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information, and failing to properly dispose of customer information. The FTC vote to approve the proposed stipulated final judgment was 5-0. The stipulated final judgment was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan 29, 2013.

Today is Monkeyman's birthday! Kerry, for those who have forgotten, was a Sales rep and Customer Service Manager for ATX back in the days of Caribou Maine , and often helped us out. He's 37 today!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvNbUnB0438

Well, that's when you offer them an appointment [billable, of course] to sit down and discuss their options and their plans and goals. Briefly you can skim over the options on the phone, but only vaguely. Your knowledge is worth getting paid for, and if they don't understand and respect that, they will never be good clients. So most of your response, Marco, should be general questions to him, such as "did you elect to make the LLC a corp?" "Have you elected Sub S status", if they say yes. Then questions about their current personal return. The point is not to give them a simple answer, but to make them realize that it's a complex question with no easy answer but lots of potential benefits if the right choice is made.

Atticus and I are old enough not to care if some silly person is dumb enough to take an uncited remark as an opinion to rely on!

Thanks, I'm glad you saw it that way, that was how I saw it when we started it. But several people saw it as very divisive, and more importantly, it had tapered off a lot, but did seem to bring out the worst in a few members. We just decided that with few participating, and yet a couple of members still getting 'warnings' there due to the nastiness of their posts, closing it was for the best. I liked the idea of discussing ideas with the members here, as I respect most here for their knowledge and intelligence. But I don't want the anger that political debate stirs in some to poison the tone of the whole board. I was surprised how vicious a few got there. So better to end it, I think. It was actually my suggestion, in fact, but Eric and Judy both agreed.

Good idea

A stipend is defined as a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses. The income from stipends is reportable. Is the stipend or fee paid to an employee or an independent contractor? The answer to this question determines the way that the stipend is reported. Payments of scholarships, fellowships, and grants paid to U.S. citizens and resident aliens are not generally reportable to the IRS and are not generally subject to withholding of tax. However, payments of taxable scholarships, fellowships, and grants to nonresident aliens are generally reportable to the IRS and are generally subject to withholding of U.S. Federal income tax. Stipends, tuition waivers, or any other financial aid paid to or on behalf of NONRESIDENT ALIENS which require the recipient to perform services past, present, or future, in exchange for the financial aid are taxable as wages, are reportable to IRS on Forms 941 and W-2, and are subject to the withholding rules discussed under "Wages Paid to Aliens". I'd suspect that a stipend that large does require some services, making it SE income, but you need to contact the school to be sure.

In that case, he should win. Does not mean he will, however, as NY courts have a bad record of ruling for the state in spite of such facts. Hope he does.

Marilyn, you've been here since day 1, how could you not know that's Atticus's member name? You do make a good case for the need for an agreed on 'sarcastic' font. I've nominated the "Comic sans MS" for that, but t's been ignored so far.

August 12, 2014 By Jim Buttonow For the third time in three years, the Internal Revenue Service has changed Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative, which Circular 230 licensed tax professionals use to represent their clients before the IRS. Several major updates to the form anticipate Affordable Care Act compliance and reflect the retirement of e-Services online tools for tax professionals. However, one important change was not found on the form at all – but, rather, in the instructions. The IRS changed Form 2848 instructions to point out to practitioners how to get a list of their active authorizations on file with the agency. Authorizations automatically stay on file with the IRS for seven years. But when your client’s engagement is complete, it’s a best practice to withdraw your authorizations to limit your professional responsibility to the client and the IRS. When your client’s Form 2848 remains on file with the IRS, the IRS will come to you, as your client’s authorized representative, to speak on behalf of your client – even if you’re not engaged to do so. This can present client challenges and disrupt IRS compliance efforts. The IRS expects tax professionals with a power of attorney authorization to be in a knowledgeable position to represent their clients, or withdraw the authorization. As the Form 2848 instructions now explain, practitioners can request a list of active authorizations by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the IRS Centralized Authorization File unit, which keeps track of practitioners’ filed tax authorizations. This FOIA request is called a CAF77 request. Submitting a CAF77 request The IRS requires a specific format for this request and provides a sample CAF77 request letter as a template. The IRS also requires proof of identity with the letter; attach a copy of your driver’s license or a notarized statement swearing to your identity. Fax or mail the request to the FOIA office: Internal Revenue Service HQ FOIA Stop 211 2980 Brandywine Road Chamblee, GA 30341 Fax: (877) 807-9215 You can request that the IRS provide the listing of your authorizations on a CD (in a Windows Notepad text file) or in a paper document. The listing will show all clients with active authorizations under a single CAF number. If you have multiple CAF numbers, you should request CAF77 listings for each CAF number. The listing will include all Forms 2848 and Forms 8821, Tax Information Authorization, in effect. It will not include the third-party designee from any filed returns. It usually takes two to four weeks to receive your CAF77 listing. Once you receive the listing, review it for authorizations you’d like to withdraw. Submitting an authorization withdrawal request You can withdraw authorizations individually using the existing instructions on Form 2848. To withdraw multiple authorizations, it’s easier to use a CAF77 listing. Here’s how: 1. On your CAF77 listing, identify and mark out the clients for whom you want to keep authorizations on file. The remaining authorizations will be withdrawn. 2. Include a cover letter explaining that you want to withdraw authorizations for all clients listed, excluding the client information that is marked out. You, as the client’s representative, must sign and date the letter. 3. Send the cover letter and marked-up CAF77 listing to the assigned CAF unit for the state in which you practice. When the CAF unit receives your request, it should withdraw the authorizations you indicated. After the CAF unit processes your request, the clients for whom you withdrew authorizations may receive Letter 2675C, Power of Attorney Termination Response. But the IRS is inconsistent in following this procedure. Likewise, you may or may not receive correspondence about whether the CAF unit processed your request. In addition, because this process is still manual, sometimes the IRS doesn’t process withdrawal requests at all, leaving authorizations erroneously in effect. There’s no immediate, direct way to confirm that the IRS withdrew your authorizations. That is why it’s a best practice to regularly submit CAF77 requests to view your authorizations on file. Many tax professionals have suggested that the IRS facilitate this process by allowing practitioners to view a complete listing of their authorizations and withdraw them in an online account. The IRS has expressed interest in this solution, but has not provided a timeline for development of this functionality. As reflected in the IRS changes to Form 2848, withdrawing authorizations is an important practice. It provides needed closure to engagements and defines your professional responsibility to the client and the IRS.

You need to communicate with the bank, since given the details, the RMD was zero. If necessary, [belt and suspenders logic] file the 5329s showing the amount of the RMD as zero, with the reason being that she still worked for the company that she had the 401K with. What you want is to prevent the issue from arising down the road when her health may have changed and she not be able to deal with it. And need all the money for her care.

Judy, YOU ARE A STAR!!!