dexterman

I'm getting more irritated with the Turbo tax ads, in particular the business ads. They claim it's so easy anyone can do it and are offering free efile for Corps, P-ships and individual businesses. I think they de-value the service we offer making it sound like we are overcharging to do such a "simple task"!

Yes it's true, it is totally up to the bank - some banks will no longer accept the 8109's and other banks will charge to process the 8109's.

In Wisconsin spouses are not exempt from Workers Comp either.

Thanks, that releives a bit of stress.

Does an extension need to be filed in order to efile after 4/15/08? I have a few people who need to do just the stimulus return and I'm so busy right now I don't want to take the time to get info needed to file the extension. Can I just have them come in after 4/15 to complete and efile a return or will they need to mail it if they do not file an extension?

Do you need to send 8453 with all efiled clergy?

On another note ask the lawyer what LLC stands for? I'll bet they say Limited Liability Corporation - many haven't a clue what the tax consequences of the LLC are. If the client won't follow your instructions let the lawyer do the taxes.

Mike, The amounts are in box 1, 3, 5 and 16(State Wages). Box 2, 4, 6 and 17(State w/held) are Zero? Also, I did the worksheet from the Quickfinder and deducted the business portion of his unreimbursed expenses for the SE income.

I didn't realized there is so much involved and so many errors with clergy and reporting until this year, touched on the subject slightly at past seminars, but mind wonders because I have not actually dealt w/ the issue. I thought the designated housing allowance was just some number that was grabbed out of the air, never realized how important it is. So if a minister normally receives a salary of $34,000 they could negogiate to set the housing allowance at say $6,000. Then when the W-2 is completed box 1, 3 and 5 should have $28,000 and box 14 could have the amount of $6,000 reported for informational purposes only. Then for SE purposes I would add the lesser of (1) designated amount, (2) amount actually spent or (3) the fair rental value? My minister has a salary of $31,000 and said the housing allowance is $1,800 plus utilities but in box 1, 3 and 5 the total $31,000 is reported. So if indeed the $1800 is the designated housing allowance this amount only should be deducted from box 1, 3, and 5(the corrected amount of $29,200)?

It was entered as a negative on line 21. I have studied past years returns and can't find a rhyme or reason to the amounts that are deducted. One year the amount equal to the housing allowance was deducted, another year the housing allowance plus utilities, and another year nothing. I do want to do the return correctly and neither over or under report the income. Would there be a proper reason to deduct any part of the housing allowance on line 21? If so when or why? I've been trying to research but at this time of year my mind is not totally clear and I don't have a lot of extra time, most likely we'll do an extension, but he's pushing for not. Hmmmmmmmmmm I wonder why? Can we say REBATE!

Anyone have any thoughts on this portion of my question? I have a new minister and in previous years the CPA took a deduction for part of the housing allowance on line 21? Under what circustances would this be done? Could it be that part of the housing allowance was erroneously included in box 7 of the W-2? CPA has sinced died and new treasurer at the church and the Minister has not a clue???

Maximum Gross income is $3,400. So if all other requirements met and he did not provice more than 1/2 of his own support yes she can claim him as a dependent for 2007.

Is 100% of the housing allowance always subject to SE tax (if not exempted) or is it also the lesser of (1) designated amount, (2) amount actually spent or (3) the fair rental value? If it is not the lesser of, why would it more be advantageous for an increased $ amount, because what you save in income taxes you pay in SE tax, or am I missing something? Former CPA told (according to minister anyways) minister the less the designated allowance the better because he wouldn't have to pay SE tax on this amount. I have a new minister and in previous years the CPA took a deduction for part of the housing allowance on line 21? Under what circustances would this be done? Could it be that part of the housing allowance was erroneously included in box 7 of the W-2? CPA has sinced died and new treasurer at the church and the Minister has not a clue???

Is 100% of the housing allowance always subject to SE tax (if not exempted) or is it also the lesser of (1) designated amount, (2) amount actually spent or (3) the fair rental value? If it is not the lesser of, why would it more be advantageous for an increased $ amount, because what you save in income taxes you pay in SE tax, or am I missing something? Former CPA told (according to minister anyways) minister the less the designated allowance the better because he wouldn't have to pay SE tax on this amount. I have a new minister and in previous years the CPA took a deduction for part of the housing allowance on line 21? Under what circustances would this be done? Could it be that part of the housing allowance was erroneously included in box 7 of the W-2? CPA has sinced died and new treasurer at the church and the Minister has not a clue???