David1980

I saw that on the trx forum. And the TRX rep response was almost a non-response joke. Are they going to fix it? No way to tell based on that comment...

They don't end up doing the matching of W-2's or 1099's or K-1's til much later in the year so you should be fine to file the 1040.

1099-A is used to calculate the gain or loss on disposition of an asset. If it's a personal home unless they refinanced way above the original purchase price it's a loss or within the exclusion amount. No reporting required. If it's a rental/business or investment property then you may have a reportable gain or loss. 1099-C is used when there is cancellation of debt income. For a personal home generally Form 982. Form 1099-C can also be used to report the same information as Form 1099-A when there is cancellation of debt income. So potentially the taxpayer could receive both a 1099-A and a 1099-C in one year, or a 1099-A one year a 1099-C in a later year, or just a 1099-C. If there's a FMV in box 7 it's serving the function of both Form 1099-A and 1099-C in which case the first paragraph about 1099-A also applies to 1099-C.

In other software 982 (like many of these ATX delayed forms) has been available since the first day of EF. I get the impression ATX support really just does not know and it's easy to point the finger instead of figure out what's actually happening.

Yeah you can efile with it. You retain it instead of the W-2 with the 8879/other docs. If you can't get an EIN, then you are forced to paper file it.

Form 4852 is not a form that gets filed electronically (see the list @ http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/providers/artic...173842,00.html). All that gets sent is a W-2 (which hopefully is marked nonstandard) and of course that can be sent at the start of filing season. The risk you would have filing 4852 before the IRS really wants you to is if they did an e-file compliance audit of you and found out you had a bunch of returns with forms 4852 before you were supposed to.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p17.pdf Page 26 has an excellent chart of the rules for qualifying child versus qualifying relative. You'll want to note a couple things. 1) qualifying child rule #2, must be under age 19 or under age 24 & a full time student. (18 < 19) And 2) qualifying child rule #4 the child cannot have provided over half their own support. The rule you refer to regarding $3500 is on the right side of that page, qualifying relative rule #3. However, it does not apply *if* he is a qualifying child. The way you started the post ... Is there a weird relationship between the brother and your mom other than simple parent/child? (IE, your half brother from other parents or ... ?)

Did you get a reject 448? There was an efile alert on that reject among others. Basically IRS is rejecting all returns that have an IRA deduction where the taxpayer is over 70.5. Even if the IRA is for the spouse. Supposed to get fixed later in February (2-weeks or so away?) One way around it is to swap the taxpayer/spouse on the return since it's rejecting for the taxpayer's age. Unless you're getting a different reject.

Well what that means is that the employer's EIN was issued in the current processing year. Or, that the EIN was issued in 2009. Assuming that you have the exact same information as last year sounds like something got screwed up in IRS computers for that EIN. I'd try resending it just for the sake of ruling out random error or bogus reject (like all those 515's last year.)

And if it created taxable social security... At that age you really should be finding out the tax consequences when you do stuff like that. Er, before you do it I mean. :)

I thought about that. The banks by telling the preparers to leave 70 blank are going to create a delay when blank is not the correct amount. However, and assuming the figures the banks gave were correct, it probably still makes sense. 3% of returns qualify, and 17% had it in error. So if they allow a RAL when it has it they'll have 17% of returns delayed while if they allow a RAL when it doesn't have RRC but should they'll have 3% of returns delayed. I'd preparer it the right way and just not sell a RAL to a client with an RRC. How the IRS should have handled this is to just distribute the non-RRC portion on time and only delay the RRC portion. It just doesn't make any sense that they delay the amount they know is correct to correct the amount they don't.

Is ATX having a lot of problems with very late forms approvals this year or was it like this in the past too?

So? Does she have any income? The forms can be mailed off and the required information mailed to him. This of course won't get an instant refund but it will probably provide the best tax outcome. Otherwise MFS just sucks... ?

And even then didn't the IRS say they weren't going to follow the ruling outside of the court's jurisdiction? So if you're within the 8th circular court's jurisdiction it applies but not elsewhere?

Yeah exactly. Like I said before, I've done worse to get a return through efile. :)

Also with this one you get people who know TaxWise but do not use TRX. The TRX board is more likely to be only TRX users of TaxWise. Same thing happened when TRX sold IntelliTax. You could get IntelliTax people helping with TRX issues.

Well the official "correct" way is to paper file if it can't be e-filed. But who wants to do that. :)

Well in defense of tech support they have to put up with the stupid questions from many customers for most of the day. "Why am I not getting EIC", "Why didn't my rental loss carry to 1040 (200k income)", etc... Not to mention broken computers or networks that get blamed on software. At least TRX does have a tax support department which is more than some software providers have. But that's the great thing about forums like this one. When it's people helping people unless you ask a stupid question you're going to usually get some help. And if you do ask a stupid question you'll get called on it. :)

That's the unfortunate thing in this business. Anyone who randomly decides they want to be an income tax preparer just puts a sign out and does tax returns. As a result there will always be that person who prepares returns with bogus deductions, whether it's from lack of knowing or deliberate the result is the same. Taxpayers hear that their coworker is getting this awesome deduction and then demands that they too should get it.

If the IRS would rename Schedule C from "business" to "self employment" this wouldn't even be an issue. Anyway, despite the fact that many of the tax preparation software have in the past or current allowed you to put the amount on line 21 and calculate SE tax that is not the proper treatment. I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble over reporting it that way, but if you follow the instructions it will end up on schedule C, and there's no provisions in the IRS instructions for applying SE tax to line 21 income. Start with the Form 1099-MISC instructions for recipients (IE, page 2 of that 1099-MISC or printed on the back side. Or just get it off the 1099-MISC on the IRS website.) And then the Schedule C instructions. 2nd paragraph at the very start. So whether the taxpayer considers it a business or not is a moot point. If it's SE taxable income from 1099-MISC it goes on a C.

99% of the time it's not reportable. 1099-A is issued to give the taxpayer information to calculate the gain or loss on disposition of an asset. If it was a rental house that could be important information. A primary home though? Unless they refinanced the home to get additional money and the loan balance is greater than their cost basis they aren't going to have a gain. And if it's a loss it's not reported on the tax return anyway. I'd just ask what they originally paid for the home and as long as their rough guess is bigger than the loan canceled not give it a second thought.

For the first one, if she does not qualify based on the 2008 income she cannot get the credit this year. The Recovery Rebate Credit is based on 2008 income. Now, if they have $3000 of qualifying income they may be able to qualify (like social security.) For the second one, SSI is not qualifying income. Social security is. SSA versus SSI. SSI is supplemental security income and does not qualify them for the RRC.

Does the wife have a SSN? If he's married to a US Citizen he ought to be able to apply for an SSN. Then you could amend the return (and prior years) and get EIC. But until they both have SSN there's no EIC.

So does this mean house prices will rise by $15,000?

Hmm, looks like that's going through MEF. Cool. Anyway, looks like one of these: X0000-005 The XML data has failed schema validation. XML Error Reject And Stop *See Note above XML Error. Probably an issue with ATX itself rather than something you did. Pub 4164 is basically the 1346 equivalent with MEF for the business returns. Although other than being able to determine there's something wrong with the schema there's not much more there. Looks like the idea with MEF is to give the description of the reject with the ack, but if the schema is screwed up it can't get that far.