JohnH

Could go either way, but if it's considered meals then he gets to keep deducting 1/2 even when the amount exceeds $50 per customer (if it does).

"It's unwise to run out of altitude and ideas at the same time" - USAF "If your sergeant can see you, so can the enemy" - US Army "The only thing more accurate than enemy fire is friendly fire" - US Army "Friendly fire... isn't". - US Army "If your attack is going too well, you have walked into an ambush" - Infantry Journal "Incoming fire always has the right of way" - US Army Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate. The bombs always hit the ground. - US Air Force And my personal favorite, which I actually heard a drill instructor shout in basic training when a fellow recruit got homesick & weepy - "SON, IF YOU NEEDED A GIRLFRIEND THE AIR FORCE WOULD HAVE ISSUED YOU ONE!"

Reminds me of an experience I had several years ago in reverse. A friend at our table asked for extra cheese on his nachos AND offered to pay for it. The waitress took them back to the kitchen, but returned a few minutes later & told him the kitchen said they can't do it, even though she told them he's willing to pay more. She seemed embarrassed by the whole thing. As we were leaving, the cashier asked the obligatory question about whether everything was OK, and he told her about the cheese conversation. As the cashier was apologizing, the manager who happened to be standing nearby leaned over her shoulder and interrupted saying, "I'm the one who said we won't put extra cheese on the nachos. It doesn't matter if you wanted to pay extra. We're just too busy and pretty soon everyone will be asking for more cheese!" To which my friend replied, "No problem. You won't ever hear me ask anything again." And he turned & walked out. I don't think any of our group ever went back there again.

Interesting perspective. But if I belong to an organization of crooks wouldn't that automatically classify me as a crook by definition, even if the rest of the crooks turned against me from some reason?

Good points and no real disagreement here, although I'm not persuaded by the "frivolous return" argument. I doubt verbal information from a single IRS rep on the phone would amount to much in the total scheme of things. I don't pay too much attention to what they tell me on the phone when the answer isn't what I want to hear. Sometimes I just make another phone call & see what a different agent says to me. Amazing how often the responses are vastly different. I was assuming the issues of spousal liability had already been explained and that the spouse was OK with that, otherwise the issue wouldn't already be under discussion. Delay in getting the payment agreement is no big deal, PROVIDED acclerated collection action can be avoided. (The interest is a non-issue because the taxpayer obviously can't pay the balance in full, so what's another month or so of delay going to matter, if it can be achieved?) As for whether it might slide through, let me just say I've seen stranger things happen...

Just brainstorming here, but what would it hurt to try filing a 1040X and see what happens? After all, this isn't a case of two separate MFS returns being combined to change to a MFJ. Rather it's a case of a MFS return being amended and additional income being reported, along with a change to MFJ. Might be just enough of a gray area for it to slide through. There's no clear prohibition against filing that way, and it seems that the worst thing IRS would do is send it back with instructions to file the second return MFS, which basically puts you back to square one. What's the harm in trying?

Lion: Your memory is fine - better than mine. I originally said $10,000 but that was my error. I edited it after I saw your post.

This might be a K-1 for Unrelated Business Taxable Income in a Limited Partnership. If so, then if the amount from all Limited Partnerships in all the taxpayers IRAs is over $1,000 you have to obtain a Fed ID# for the IRA and file a Form 990-T because the trustee is dumping that responsibility onto the taxpayer.

If you ever consider having a politician over for dinner, it's wise to remember Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote: "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics." Translation - "The type of care you're entitled to get depends in part on whose ox is being gored." So the Premier decides HIS health is too important to trust to the Canadian system, although he wants to assure us they're still doing their very best for the common folk, but you know it's just so hard to do at times. Seems he had to choose between fair medical care and great medical care, so he jetted off to the US. But that in no way implies that he doesn't have confidence in the Canadian Health Care System. No, not at all - except it's too inconvenient to use when it's his heart that they're tinkering with. And his other choice, had he stayed in Canada, would naturally have been to assert his privilege to jump ahead of the common folk for his procedure - just too messy a situation. If I were a Canadian living in Newfoundland and needed a sternotomy, I'd be livid over this one. Next election, his opponent should use the "Gong Show" analogy to its fullest by suggesting the voters ring the gong on this guy at the ballot box. His next gig should be the "unknown comedian" - if he had any decency he'd already be walking around with a bag over his head. This story has been on Drudge Report for a couple of days, but the mainstream media in the US can't seem to find time to run it. I can't recall when I've seen a blatant hypocrite squirm this much. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA Wonder where our politicians will go when they want the best care after they manage to make our system more like the Canadian system they keep throwing in our faces as an example of what they want to achieve.

Wouldn't work - I'd find some other excuse. But thanks for thinking of me just the same...

And now, the ultimate excuse for not e-filing... E_File_Excuse.pdf

I see your logic, but I think the net effect of priming the multiplier pump with hundreds of thousand of dollars that never existed is precisely what caused the 2008 collapes. (Except the government manipulated the lending markets indirectly rather than via a direct subsidy). When it became painfully obvious that those dollars didn't exist, the economic system collapsed and the government had to create a situation where we pretend that they exist, even though they still don't. (We called this TARP, which I thought was appropriate since a tarp is a piece of fabric whose purpose is to cover something up) I think what you left out of your car example is the free market (flawed though it is). You'll budget money to buy a car that serves your transportation & emotional needs and you'll try your best to negotiate a price that will leave you enough dollars for a wide-screen TV or a pizza when you leave the dealership. A bureaucrat will use your money to buy a car that meets all 1,000 requirements contained in his 50-page spec manual produced by a committee, even if it is funtionally useless, aesthetically ugly, and costs a fortune (just as long as it's "in the budget"). That is, unless he is expected to personally drive it, in which case he'll have it tricked out with all the latest gadgets & options, even if he never intends to use them. I just don't buy into the idea that the government can meddle in the markets and produce a desirable result. It always produces distortions. Some are a nuisance, but others can lead us over the precipice.

So the accelerator & multiplier effect only works with housing. Interesting economic theory there - giveaways good/tax cuts bad. Since it's NEW money and it's being CREATED, why ever have an end to such a magic program? Seems like we ought to just keep creating this new money indefinitely.

I'm telling them we will have to efling next year, provided I'm still doing tax work at that time. I also tell them that if there's an opt-out provided, I'll be sending them the form as soon as it's ready.

Thanks everybody. I'm still saying the same thing I did last year: "If I'd known I was going to live this long I'd have taken better care of myself"

I'd put the $1 on Schedule B and $16 on a Schedule D with zero basis and force it to report as short-term gain. Then move on to the next return. That's what I do with most of these cheesy settlements, including one I received personally in 2008 and 2009 installments. And, as Jerry Mealer used to say, I leave it at that "even if I never see the back of my neck again."

And you say, "Let's wrap up this audit with 'no changes' and then I'll be glad to explain IRC Sec 183 to you."

Hey, I like that. Thanks for the tip, Taxbilly.

I would put in on Line 21 with no schedule SE, along with a good explanatory notation on the line saying something to the effect "Military Recruitment Bonus". He's not in the business of recruiting, so I see it as an award. Not sying IRS won't question it since it's in box 7, but at the end of the day it's facts & circumstances that control, not what box someone chose to use.

I agree in principle, but in my opinion there's a slightly different order. Western Civlization is built of concrete & steel, but it's all held together by duct tape and Velcro.

Yes, that would be the other side of the coin, woulnd't it?

I do think it's important to put things in perspective. While I agree philosphically that it isn't a good idea to let the government hold one's money, it's a pretty good alternative for someone who doesn't have the discipline to save. The forced savings represented by the tax refund at least gives them a chance to accumulate a few dollars, even if they blow it at year end. Assuming a $5,000 refund, and acknowledging that a money market account currently pays about 3/4 of 1%, that means that a $5,000 tax refund costs the individual $18.75 in foregone interest. (I assumed that the $5,000 went into the account in equal installments throughout the year. Paying $18.75 to put that $5,000 aside is virtually irrelevant, especially since they sometimes pay $180 or so to get their hand on the money via a RAL).

ATX - 8 overall (9 for value - I agree with Tom on this) Microvision - 9 overall (price is problematic - maybe a 2 or 3 for value) Drake - 8 overall (based on evaluation only) Tax Slayer Pro - 5 overall (based on evaluation only)

It's always a good idea to spot-check the current year's mortgage interest against the previous year. Even better, check the change in the interest deduction going back two years. There will be a discernible pattern unless there's been a significant principal payment or a change in the rate. This also helps flush out a refi that the client forgot to mention, in which case there may be points to amortize and/or unamortized points to write off from a previous refi. As Pacun & Taxbilly pointed out, the opportunity to mess this up increases with the number of mortgages being sold, takeovers, upheaval in the industry, and certain lenders...