Catherine

While I agree with @Evan S. Golar that this AFFECTS the states, that is far different from the claim that it is an unConstitutional law because of state effects. Changes to bankruptcy law (authority given to the feds in Article I, Section 8 ) also affect the states - but that is a power given to the feds by the Constitution. All the states to be affected could decide to cancel their income tax immediately and instead impose a state sales tax to fund their operations. Or expand their lottery programs. Whatever. That is an area reserved for state control. The high-tax states could be said to have been subsidized by the feds all these years because they allowed state taxes to be deducted, in full, from income (for itemizers). Wasn't that the reason the no-income-tax states fussed until the IRS added state sales taxes in to the mix of what could be deducted? Because it wasn't "fair" to deduct income tax but not sales tax, when a state chose the latter method for raising funds? As for @Edsel's comments in his first paragraph - I happen to agree. The federal system has been subsidizing both high-income-tax states AND private home ownership. The original intention was to encourage home ownership and relieve some local tax burdens. But as is usual for any government program with social content, no matter how good (and pure) the intent, eventually it has the opposite affect from what was intended. Home ownership, because of the deduction for mortgage interest and property taxes, ultimately made it harder for people to buy, because prices increased. Remember when credit card interest was a deduction? When that went away, people started refinancing their houses to pay off their credit cards (turning short term fun like clothes and trips into thirty-year debt obligations), and we now have the task of teasing apart actual house (purchase or improvement) debt from what was used for the new car or the fancy vacation. Even the charitable deduction - yes it rewards people for being kind (by lowering the cost of so doing) but it also tricks people into thinking that the government should be involved (even obliquely) in a decision to donate to a charity. Hence the year-end "get your deduction!" drives every December. As for changes to the law in the future - what was it Mark Twain used to say? Something about Congress being in session means we're all in danger.... We can only be certain that the law WILL be changed. All other considerations are up for grabs.

NOT the mamma! NOT the mamma! and AGAIN! lol.

Welcome back, @BulldogTom, you've been missed! I hope someone can help you out, because while I've used QB for construction, they were all tiny companies. You're out of my league there.

I'll send 'em to you! I have found that they always want them yesterday, and want them for free. Neither of which is acceptable to me.

That is *always* the case, and the more complex the situation, the more minefields laid! Good luck.

I go with Jack on this one. The 16th amendment authorized the federal government to "collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment..." (apportionment was required under Article I of the Constitution, so had to be specifically addressed). This amendment affects only the FEDERAL government. For the states speciously to claim this affects them points only to desperation and grasping at straws. (NOT political; speaking truth about Constitutional issues as that is my other full-time job. Please note the lack of smart-aleck comments about state spending. But I thought them!)

I am certainly NOT going to mind doing multiple scenarios (requested by the lawyers of divorcing clients) on the tax affects of alimony X, Y, Z, P, Q, and R. I hate those.

A CPA I worked with years ago disregarded any discrepancy (for his corporate clients) under $10K as being not worth his time (and the client's money) for him to track down. Journal entry, it goes poof! and on we go with life.

I like Gail's answer, but will only add to watch for required state filings (LLC annual report, for example, is due in MA).

BAD taxpayer! NO early payments! NO cookie! We let you off penalty THIS time....grrrr.

Yes, and do you remember the animatronics show "Dinosaurs" from - I forget when, but a long time ago; early 90's-ish. All the dinosaurs were named after oil companies. Earl Sinclair, his mother in law Ethyl Phillips, boss Mr B. P. Richfield, buddy Roy Hess. It was a hoot!

Next to your triceratops?

Depends on the level of authentication protocol. $1.50 and $2.50, depending. Per person signing - so couples will be double.

We have also advised our clients to check their withheld tax for 2018.

I'd make a separate W-4 for people who get large but irregular bonuses or commissions. We've ALL seen clients usually in a 20% bracket have a huge bonus (that bracket-bumps them) that gets 20% withheld. Then they get slammed in April. I'd like folks to have the opportunity to increase % tax withheld on those big bonuses to 35% or 40%.

I use CPAperless' product "Signature Flow" that works very efficiently. The big plus with them is that it's a per-signature charge, rather than a monthly fee. For the dozen or two e-signatures I do a year, paying a stiff monthly fee would be stupid. I have my business card on file, they charge me monthly for that month's signatures.

Thank you, @Edsel, for your fabulous exposition on timber issues!

While what @Abby Normal says is very true, give them the list of all the additional information they have to provide to support all the transactions, and they might agree to make it cleaner. As much as they like "putting one over" they detest inconveniencing themselves more.

Since it's 2018, they still have time to exchange cash for this, and fix the situation. Pay for the asset. Get paid in return for the "barter" work. All the paperwork is right. Reporting is straightforward. All the "how did you decide on the value of the barter work?" questions are made moot.

I'm with FDNY; my legis-vermin are all on the wrong side for getting anything useful out of the IRS. But I'll write to them anyway. FYI, everyone, the various offices use a very sophisticated method for figuring how people feel about matters: they *count*. So, if you call, email, fax, and write, your position gets four slots. Do it!

In anything resembling this possibility, I always try to be elsewhere when the finger is pointed! As in, at least a full county away. If I don't CMA (my) at all times, I can't help anyone. And I hate jumpsuits. Orange is OK, but not jumpsuits. Blech.

Hey, why not?! What two concepts occur (and are used mathematically) everywhere in science and engineering, but do not exist in our universe? True randomness. Infinity.

@JohnH's sig line, "In theory, practice and theory are identical. In practice, they are not," leads to this response: I want to live in theory - EVERYTHING works in theory!

Balloon was my thought, too.

You could have just ended the sentence here, and it would apply to *many* situations!