Catherine

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?

A sign I used to have up back in my engineering days (I did materials and failure analysis, among other things): We have not succeeded in answering all of your questions. In fact, the results we have found raise a whole NEW set of questions. In some ways, we are as confused as ever - but we believe we are confused at a Higher Level, and about More Important things.

Never got to the cross-stitch but made biscuits to go with the beef barley soup made from leftovers, and practiced my fiddle too. I am really dreading the pile over at my office waiting for me. I did get email tonight so I can finish up one of the corporate returns. A consultant, so NO 3115 needed; he'll just take the annual election. No real property; just a laptop and that was taken under Section 179. Phew!

From another newsgroup, and also posted in the repair regs pinned thread: This was posted on another list over the weekend. “Good morning everyone, I have some hopeful news. I spoke to someone from the AICPA's Tax Division yesterday and he told me they had a meeting with IRS last Monday about the tangible property regs and the 3115. Nothing certain, but IRS is considering accepting a statement with the return saying that the taxpayer is adopting the new regs instead of having to file a 3115. And, I think more importantly, they may apply the regs prospectively. Presumably, IRS will decide withing 2 weeks whether they'll go this route. So, in his words, "Drag your feet". Wouldn't it have been nice if IRS had made this decision 2 months ago?” Keep your fingers crossed that the IRS will do the right thing!

From another newsgroup: This was posted on another list over the weekend. “Good morning everyone, I have some hopeful news. I spoke to someone from the AICPA's Tax Division yesterday and he told me they had a meeting with IRS last Monday about the tangible property regs and the 3115. Nothing certain, but IRS is considering accepting a statement with the return saying that the taxpayer is adopting the new regs instead of having to file a 3115. And, I think more importantly, they may apply the regs prospectively. Presumably, IRS will decide withing 2 weeks whether they'll go this route. So, in his words, "Drag your feet". Wouldn't it have been nice if IRS had made this decision 2 months ago?” Keep your fingers crossed that the IRS will do the right thing!

And I'm stuck at home with another snowstorm. This might not have been the best year to move my office out of the house... The three returns I brought home to do today are done - well, except for final review and printing to pdf, which I will do back at my office tomorrow. So, since I still can't get TO my office, I guess I'll take out my cross-stitch kit and work on that for a bit. I'd actually prefer to be making progress on taxes - but that's off the books for today. Argh.

Naveen -- My deepest sympathies and condolences. May God grant you peace in your heart, under all your grieving.

I am #4 in my zip code (out of 51) and a bit further down the list for the zip code for my office (out of 59).

for Rita -

We're scheduled for MORE snow Sat-Sun-Mon. 1-3" Saturday 5-8" Sunday 8-12" Monday So, anywhere from 14" - 23" more. I'm going to hide under my desk and whimper for a while. Maybe 'til mid-March.... And this might have been a BAD year to move my office out of my house.

I can't run, either. Shin splints. Plus I find I am going too fast to enjoy the trees and flowers and other things -- but not fast enough that the view changes very much. Worst of all worlds, for me. I love to walk, though, and can keep that up all day. For faster -- let me near my bike!! In the winter I contra dance.

OK; I have gone absolutely around in circles here. I've been through CPE on this and I thought it made sense, but this "simple" one has me completely stumped. I have several small businesses that have NO assets that were not fully depreciated years ago. Neither do they own any real property. So there is no question of a 481(a) adjustment needed. All they have is unwritten (now written, but for years not) rules that under $200 or $500 (depending on which business) they expense and do not capitalize. Printers and small tools and office equipment, generally, of the type that dies in a couple years and is then replaced with the latest cheap version. Or do they really mean it when the revproc says "does not apply" to businesses where "...(iii) Amounts paid or incurred to which the taxpayer has elected to apply the de minimis safe harbor under § 1.263(a)-1(f);" -- but then what happens to the rule of thumb that *every* business needs this form? What if all we want is to formally state using the de minimus safe harbor? What do I put on the 3115 then? Some options I have seen proposed for line 1a: "De minimus rule per Sec. 1.263(a)-(1)(f)" "All codes 184-193 per new regs" "arglefraster conforming with new splotnik regs" and for the final question.... laser print it on paper, or print out a blank and fill it in with a quill dipped in my own blood?

And when they do, their price goes UP -- and yet somehow then they don't complain. They have learned that "going cheap" always costs WAY more.

Take a just-under-seven-minute break and watch this gorgeous kinetic sculpture at the Singapore Airport.

I closed yesterday as well.

I didn't mean to imply that you don't have the right experience; I was suggesting someone with a specialty so that when he received the same counsel he could not fluff it off since it will not be to his liking.