Catherine

Here's your hat and don't stumble on the way out.

Cry me a river, Build me a bridge -- and GET OVER IT.

This morning's joyful news...

Good! Most places withhold 10% for tax for people in higher brackets or AMT territory - and few withhold any state tax. My folks have learned to contact me after one of these sales to figure if they need to make an estimated payment, rather than get hammered in April (including underpayment penalties). 'Course, some of them get a bit more than $45K on these sales. Must be nice...

My concern is some elderly clients who have two-family houses and rent out one side. Whole-house repairs - like the boiler that broke a few years ago mid-winter and had to be replaced immediately - got expensed (restoration of function). But under the new regs, the portion that was improvements (more efficient than the ancient behemoth) should have been capitalized, and the old boiler use written off. How am I going to figure what percentage of a new boiler is "improvements" due to efficiency? How am I going to figure the "loss" on the ancient thing that died? How do I protect folks in their 70's - or older - from IRS scrutiny? The lack of look-back protection is nasty -- but I don't see any way even to do the analysis needed without substantially making numbers up! 10% of the new boiler is improvements for efficiency. Well, maybe 25%. How 'bout 17.267%? What if the new boiler, while more efficient, was also the *least* efficient (=cheapest to buy) model out there at the time? Does that still count as efficiency improvement? Then what about the leaking roof on another place, that had three layers of shingles so by law HAD to be stripped down and replaced? And the list goes on. My elderly landlords are all going on extension. I'm not giving them a choice.

Like Judy said -- yes you still need the Sch D & 8949 to show the capital loss (=transaction fees). And you are very welcome! Folks here have given me priceless advice and instructions; I'm glad to be able to give back a little.

ALL the gain is reported in the W-2 -- that's what the "Code V" means. So he is actually getting taxed at ordinary income rates for what would otherwise be a capital gain. Basis includes all the amount that was added to his W-2 noted by the Code V. Without the stock sale, his W-2 would be LOWER by that Code V amount. So there is indeed a small capital loss in the amount of the transaction fees (generally $10 to $45, depending on the brokerage firm). And they never withhold enough tax in the W-2. Ever.

Fortunately for me (but possibly not for Eric!) the storm will be worst in coastal and Downeast Maine. Nova Scotia, too, where my brother-in-law ans his wife live.

See the message I sent you.

The attached is part of our roof AFTER my husband got about of foot of snow off of it. The windows you see, if I stand next to them outside, have the bottom of the frame about at my shoulder level. The bluish-toned photo is from BEFORE.

I have E&O insurance, a rider on the home office, and a separate business policy for the office-office. 'Round here they will not write a separate business policy on a home unless you have employees -- and when I hired someone, it was when I moved to the office-office.

I can't possibly give turn-around time right now. I finished two corporations after bashing my head against the repair regs for a couple hours *each* only to determine each qualifies for elections -- but I had to *prove* it to myself first. Finished two returns for folks whose situations are simple and stable. Have a bunch more that just came in; ALL are missing items (brought end of year statement instead of 1099; wait where's my credit union interest page - I'll send you the info by email; hi can you help me download my bank transactions into QuickBooks and I can't believe I forgot my wife's W-2; you *name* it). I think we're all punch-drunk from all the SNOW. With another blizzard scheduled for Saturday night & Sunday. I spent some time today re-scheduling folks who were supposed to come later Saturday and on Sunday afternoon. Then I (almost) finished a major job for an accounting client.

Yet another sad case where provisions meant to help end up hurting others, who were not meant to be hurt. I suppose it's still better than the kids being at each other's throats - at least they can unite around dislike of the boyfriend.

It is hidden in the second purchase confirmation. I had to read the emails three times before I found it. Look again!

I concur with KC. If the trust and the will make no provisions, the trust eats it until dissolution. Buy the boyfriend lots of stuff that's bad for him and hope he eats it all?

Ditto and likewise. Business rider on the homeowner policy, to protect me from anyone who slips on the stairs.

That's just Quality Control checks, not a benefit.

I prefer this one: Hubble Telescope finds a smiley face! http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/hubble-finds-smiley-face/2015/02/10/id/623996/

and here it is on YouTube

Perhaps, Janitor Bob, you disappear at a distance of 250 miles?

But here is why I also asked about the will. Does that put any restrictions on the life estate -- such as the requirement to pay the costs? Or make any other provision for the costs. The beneficiaries and trustee are under NO obligation to support the (now-former) boyfriend. Unless there is a real connection to this particular house, I'd say let the bank take it.

What was the line from that song at the tail end of "Miss Congeniality"? I'll bring the bullets, you bring the wine? Or something like that.

Rita -- It may be a case where I am exhausted and punchy, but I laughed SO hard at your "Shariff with two F's" line I cried and got salt tear stains on my glasses and had to go wash them.

Are we back to that old "facts and circumstances" frou-frou? Don't we keep running into that *every* bleeping where? You'd think it would wear out by now!

What do the trust document and will say about those costs? And where is the money coming from to pay the mortgage and property taxes?