kcjenkins

Just one more of those 'tax myths' that float around. Frequently spread by barbers and realtors.

Should not be a flag, it's common to see that. That's why we have the 'Various' option.

Yep you should insist that they correct THEIR ERROR in the proper manner, with a CORRECTED 1099R.

That is normally included on the W-2? From Pub 15b: Exclusion from wages. You can generally exclude the cost of up to $50,000 of group-term life insurance from the wages of an insured employee. You can exclude the same amount from the employee's wages when figuring social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, you do not have to withhold federal income tax or pay FUTA tax on any group-term life insurance you provide to an employee. Coverage over the limit. You must include in your employee's wages the cost of group-term life insurance beyond $50,000 worth of coverage, reduced by the amount the employee paid toward the insurance. Report it as wages in boxes 1, 3, and 5 of the employee's Form W-2. Also, show it in box 12 with code “C.” The amount is subject to social security and Medicare taxes, and you may, at your option, withhold federal income tax Table 2-1. in that Pub is the go-to resource I use.

NO

If it is from the union it is not SS even if they call it "Social Security Supplementation". Put it on line 21.

Mentioning that dribbling it out to me runs up the bill sometimes helps. Some clients are incurable, but getting the extra fees makes that tolerable.

TAXATION OF RECIPIENTS OF SCHOLARSHIP/FELLOWSHIP GRANTS Since 1954, the Internal Revenue Code has contained a provision that permits the recipient of a scholarship or fellowship grant to exclude some or all of the grant from gross income. This provision is set forth in section 117 of the Code and, at least until 1986, generally permitted the entire amount of most scholarship and fellowship grants to be excluded from the recipient's gross income. In 1986, however, Congress drastically limited section 117 by restricting the exclusion to cover only those portions of a scholarship/fellowship grant that Congress believed were directly related to education, such as tuition, fees, and books. Those other elements of typical scholarship/fellowship grants, such as room, board, and travel, were considered by Congress to be non-educational and therefore ineligible for the section 117 exclusion. As a result of the 1986 changes to section 117, the current rule relating to the taxation of scholarship/fellowship grants is that the grant must be broken into its different component payments (tuition, fees, books, room/board, travel, etc), with each component payment analyzed separately. A payment will qualify for the section 117 exclusion only if: The payment is a "qualified scholarship;" The recipient is a "candidate for a degree;" and The award is for the purpose of conducting study or research at an "educational organization." Each of these terms requires further explanation. The "Qualified Scholarship" Requirement -- An amount will be treated as a "qualified scholarship" if it is a payment for either (i) tuition and fees required for enrollment or attendance at the educational institution, or (ii) fees, books, supplies or equipment required for courses of instruction. Note that the fees, books, and other non-tuition items must be "required" for either enrollment or a course of instruction. Voluntary fees and "suggested" books and supplies do not qualify. The "Candidate for a Degree" Requirement -- The definition of a "candidate for a degree" is broader than one might initially expect. It includes, of course, those individuals who are actually enrolled in a degree-seeking program, but also covers enrolled students who are not actually seeking a degree, as long as the educational institution that the person attends offers degrees and is properly accredited. For example, an individual who receives a one year fellowship to study at ASU is a "candidate for a degree" for purposes of section 117 even though the individual will not receive a degree at the end of the fellowship because ASU is an accredited educational institution that offers degrees. The "Educational Organization" Requirement -- Finally, the "educational organization" test is easily met in most instances because it simply requires that the institution have a faculty, a curriculum, and a regularly enrolled body of students. If a payment meets all three of these tests, it is excludable from the recipient's gross income; however, if any part of a scholarship/fellowship payment fails any one of these tests, the payment is taxable to the recipient. The most common taxable elements of a scholarship/ fellowship are room, board, and travel payments because they do not meet the "qualified scholarship" test.

Only if you discuss it and they say they DO expect to put it back into the business.

Yeah, She should not have filmed it while driving, but if anybody deserved to wipe out, it was that jerk. Notice AFTER he passed her he slowed back up just so he could flip her off. What a jerk.

Nope. If it was a massive amount, you might get a CP2000 and have to explain, but that's the most that would happen. And the prior depreciation was correct at the time, so no issue there.

OK, I give you all that. I would have moved over too. But just the same, can you honestly say you did not enjoy seeing him getting what he deserved?

Yes they can be

She was going the speed limit, so even though it would have been nice for her to move over, it would have required her to either speed to get in front of the truck, or slow down to get behind the truck. Then have to worry about being able to move back into the left lane for her upcoming left turn. 3 min is not an unreasonable length of time to be forced to stay at the speed limit, IMHO. It would be different had she been driving slower than the speed limit, but why blame the law-abiding driver for not accommodating the speeder?

I ​am not wasting your time. You may be, but I do not control what you click on. The post title seems rather clear to me. Many members have, over the years, expressed liking the occasional brief break. Feel free to skip them if you don't.

I had several OK clients and one non-resident one, so got familiar with them. Glad it helped.

INSTANT KARMA The YouTuber going by the username Florida Driver posted video Wednesday, saying that she’d been tailed by the truck driver for three minutes. “After about a minute, and me shaking my head, I pulled out my phone and started recording. I couldn’t move over because there were trucks in the right lane, and I sure as heck wasn’t going to speed on a rainy day with the roads being as slick as they were. I was turning left in about a half-mile when this happened,” the driver wrote. “Now bear in mind, that this guy had already passed a truck in a left turn lane, was tailgating and driving recklessly on a wet slick road, wasn’t paying attention, and all in all being an ignorant [a**]. In the full video which I will post later, you will be able to see that not once was I mouthing off, I never brake checked him, and in fact until I watched the video after the accident I didn’t even know he shot a bird at me because I wasn’t looking at him at all, I was paying attention to the road while holding the phone up with my right hand,” the driver continued. Just after the man driving the black Ford pickup truck passed this driver and changed lanes, he lost control and spun out into a grassy median. “That’s what you get,” the woman filming yelled as she laughed. Watch what the incident as it unfolded (Content warning: offensive hand gesture): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3XqZoaWKv2k According to the driver who recorded the footage, the man in the truck fled the scene but with the video, law enforcement were able to identify and charge the driver.

Yes, and it should also send an explanatory cover letter that will tell you more. Clearly since the withheld taxes at least some of it was taxable.

What are you trying to put there? It would normally be N/A for any Sch C.

Nope, guess they did not understand you. You said the wh is already flowing, so you are fine. The 592 is for when YOU are withholding, and paying in to the FTB. Which is what the Property Management Company did.

I agree with John and Michael, increase the fee on your bill, then put in a discount FOR THIS YEAR ONLY, bringing it down, but not all the way to that way low price you've been giving them.. Do not mention them going elsewhere, that is their decision. Just let them know that in future their fee will be that non-discounted number, and don't be defensive about it. Just pleasant but firm.

Why would the LLC need to file a 592? If nothing has been withheld by the LLC?

Only Eric knows. I've run out several times, myself.

I think Julie is spot-on here. I would be very concerned that the IRA has become disqualified and is now fully taxable, but can't say for sure on the spotty details, but "Be afraid be very afraid". You are going to need to see documents on this one, not just the client's summary. And be sure you bill for the extra time, because even if he lucks out by some miracle, it's very important to establish the proof NOW. And if he is screwed, it's by his own doing, not your fault, but recognizing it and dealing with it now will still save him A LOT over what it would cost if not dealt with now, and the CP2000 comes 2 years later.