kcjenkins

change it to a 'no'

Probably take a week or two, JB.

In your post, I thought you said purchase price [not selling price] was 100K, FMV of the equipment was 50K, so the BV of the Goodwill would have been 50K. If the purchase price of the Goodwill was higher, that changes my answer Yes, you can have a loss on the sale of purchased Goodwill.

Sorry, JB, but that IS commuting, just like a construction worker who goes to different worksites. It's only deductible if he has a game "outside of his normal work area", like an out of town playoff or such. It goes back to the 'tax home' rule.

I'm confused? If the purchase was 50K for equipment, and 50K for Goodwill, how can the BV of the Goodwill be 100K?

Can't have it both ways. If it's a grant and not subject to FICA he's getting a good deal, but it's not going to count on the 2441.

Hope everyone will inform the board on their state's rule on this. AR allows the last two years to be efiled. MO I believe does not. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Gail, we would never kick you off!

The dolphin rescue was inspiring, not only for itself but for what it teaches us, that a fast response can = 100% saved. Thank goodness all those people were there when it happened, and that a few of them quickly rushed in to take action, which then inspired more to act.

http://www.wimp.com/storydog/

Funny

OK, report it as a sale, at FMV and keep the info in he client folder in case of any future CP2000.

But if someone "has expenses that seem ridiculous", I'm not going to do the return, unless they can document them at least enough to answer my doubts. I'm not their auditor, but I have to sleep at night feeling like I have signed the return in the honest belief that its a valid return.

If you look at his member profile, he's been doing this only a few years. Says he wants to learn. If so, he will find this board a great resource, but only if he's open to listening. And being a bit less defensive. No one really likes being told they are wrong, but we all make mistakes sometimes. What is important is to acknowledge it and learn from it. Which is the only reason we are still trying to get him to understand. We will see if he accepts advice when he sees it is backed up with cites, and has the cojones to admit his mistake. If so, I for one will be happy to help him in future. If not, I won't waste my time on him.

It seems from this that you are assuming that "if the IRS accepts the return, that means it is correct". But that is not correct. 1. Often the IRS accepts a return, pays the refund, even though it's a bogus return. 2. Often the IRS accepts a return, pays the refund, and then a year or two later challenges the return with a CP2000. What the members here have been trying to communicate to you is what is the correct, legal possible filing status in this situation. You ask how we would have handled this situation. OK, here's how everyone in this group would handle it. We would explain to the client that while he could claim all three as dependents IF they lived with him all year, he can NOT claim any of the four tax benefits that require a qualifying child, including Head of Household, EIC, CTC, and Form 2441. The correct, legal possible filing status is based on what the Code says, not on what someone might get away with. Clearly, the last guy she lived with filed a fraudulent return. If you filed this new client as HOH you did too. How you deal with that is up to you. We've done all we can to help, by explaining why he does not qualify.

check their website?

have you tried doing a sync first?

You have a real problem, IMHO, claiming these people as dependants, given what you just told us. If she was claimed by someone else, last year, the odds are really high that she did not move in with the new guy on 1/1/13, in which case she and the kids do not meet the very strict requirements for non-related dependants. Also, are you clear now that even if he could claim them as dependants, he can not claim HOH ?

Yes, that should work

Tax Professionals are pretty sensitive to any suggestion that we would support breaking the law. The way you worded it, that's what it sounded like you were asking to do. We work hard to get our clients the best possible outcome, WITHIN THE LAW, but even when we think the law is stupid or unfair, we stay within it.

Good info, but all those swipers require a phone or tablet. Tom was talking about paypal through the computer, which does not give you the fast use of your money like the swiper does.

Tape a cup over it, if the cat is a regular in the office. They love warm spots like the top of a computer!

Paypal is a possible, but although the fee is about the same, the timing is longer, Paypal takes 3 to 5 DAYS to give you credit, while Square is net business day. Why not consider getting an older model like a 4S iPhone? AT&T is selling those as cheap as $0. Or go ahead and treat yourself to a tablet!