JohnH

Terry: I'm willing to be corrected if I'm off base here, but I think that generally speaking, the less the church gets involved in the specifics of the H&U allowance the better. They should have the pastor submit an estimate and then the budgeted amount should be set well above that figure, in order to be sure any reasonable contingencies are covered. It does no harm if the pastor doesn't spend it all and has to pull some of it back into income, but if the pastor's actual allowable expenses exceed the amount set for any reason, then he/she loses the favorable tax treatment of the amount not designated as H&U allowance. Once the congregation has met their responsibility to determine the amount in advance and made the proper designation, the rest is between the pastor and the tax preparer (and of course the pastor's boss).

Mike: Possibly this has been addressed on another thread, but I don't recall. I have read in some places that the resolution designating the H&U allowance for a given year should say something to the effect that it applies to the "current year and all future years unless subsequently changed". The effect of this wording would be to provide some cover if there's a failure to handle it correctly in a subsequent year (maybe due to a change in treasurers, finance or budget committees, etc) and at least validate the original amount even if a larger amount were paid without a proper resolution. Do you have an opinion on that?

Thanks, and I have to say if I'd known I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself.

I haven't tried this, but it could be a work-around. You could edit each of the masters for sheets that you don't want to print and simply make each one a blank page. It would still eject a page, but it would be blank. You'd then remove the blank sheets for re-use when you're collating the return. Not very elegant, but it might work. Another solution would be to print the letter and return cover sheet directly from the tab before even making your return print selections. I only print the return cover sheet for each return, so I just click on the "Client Letters" tab, select the "Cover Sheet", and then do a quick "Print Page" while I'm in the process of preparing the return. Then I right-click the "Client Letters" tab and delete the whole mess from the return since none of it is needed any more.

Seems like he would be willing to invest some bucks in paying you to do the research to justify a lower FMV, if he's smart about it. With $15K in taxes on the line, a couple of thousand spent to document a lower value would seem to be a wise investment. On the other hand, if all he wants to do is just toss you the paperwork & say "handle it", then maybe he's stuck with the info on the 1099.

First California, now it's Kansas. http://www.kansas.com/735/story/701750.html Wonder if we're going to need a special topic dedicated strictly to states that don't expect to pay refunds on time. Sure does make for some interesting conversation with clients about the advisability of deliberately overpaying and then waiting for a refund.

Is it our politicians who are imbeciles, or might it be the voters? I said this on the TMI forum and I stand by it - I think our politicians by and large have learned well from WC Fields' character (Larsen E. Whipsnade): "... my granddaddy said right before they sprung the trap, 'Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump' ".

If ATX won't provide the check box, and if you have several clients in this situation, maybe it would be helpful to design an Excel spreadsheet to divide the income & expenses automatically. All you'd need would be 3 columns (maybe a 4th for proofs). After setting up the worksheet to mirror the line order for the Schedule C, you're ready to go. Enter the applicable percentage for each spouse in a cell at the top (50% in most cases, but I'd use the field just in case I had a situation that is unique), then set each column to allocate the total expense for each line item to the respective spouse. Enter the amounts in the first column and let the spreadsheet do the work, then transfer the amounts to the separate Schedule C's. Not as handy as checking a box on the return, but still better than paper & pencil. It's probably possible to create the worksheet within ATX, although I prefer to work directly in Excel because the ATX custom worksheets are usually missing some feature I like to use.

You're right - I don't use the stapler unreasonably. I reserve hassling the authorities for only those situations in which it's clearly called for. I seem to recall the post about the pencil eraser as well, but unfortunately it wasn't me. However, some of the red beads on my abacus broke off due to overuse, so if you run across any of those I'd be most grateful if you'd send them along. (I can't even find any of those suckers on ebay right now)

I have several clients who use PO Boxes and have never encountered any sort of problem. I've always regarded the instruction as a suggestion, rather than a requirement.

When they pry my stapler from my cold, dead hands, at least they'll be able to say "He made pretty good use of his computers, but he never surrendered to the e-flilnging pressure."

I'm thinking that if I get any of these this year I'm going to tell them they will have to go on extension to give them and me time to sort it all out. There may be exceptions to that rule if the matter is clear-cut and simple, but for most of them this is not a routine tax prep and they need the best attention I can give - certainly not while the main rush is going on.

Does she buy toys for the kids to play with? Does she buy diapers, Desitin, or other such personal-care supplies to keep as spares if the parents forget to bring them? Bibs, high chairs, booster seats? CD's or VCR tapes to entertain the kids on rainy days or to play at nap time?

Tell him next time to make the SEP contribution after the first of the current year. Then he can allocate the proper amount to the prior year and the excess to the current year. (Although it doesn't sound like he listens to advice very well).

Think "Star Wars"... Then get back to work!

Yeah, I think everybody had bagged this deduction.

Smart boyfriend. (Wish I had been that smart when I was dating many, many years ago). He might be a keeper.

I'd be a little cautious about waiting to take the credit until the legislation passes. One never knows when a poorly-worded phrase such as relief for "Taxpayers who have already claimed the credit" might be in there, rather than "Taxpayers eligible for the credit between ___ and ___ " or some other more broadly-worded phrase. Stranger things have happened, and then at best you're hoping & praying for a Technical Correction somewhere in the future. Of course, that's only an issue with hastily-written legislation. In this case since the Congress clearly has its head on straight and isn't trying to get something done by an arbitrary deadline, there's probably nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if some momentous occasion such as President's Day is the controlling factor, there might be reason for concern. Oh, I'm probably just rambling for no reason here...

This may be a bit of a stretch, but it seems to me that the Home Buyer's Credit operates in practice in much the same way as a Sec 179 depreciation deduction. You get to derive a tax benefit now in exchange for giving something up in the future. Repaying the credit is the equivalent of paying the tax on the phantom income related to the principal payments on a loan used to finance an asset on which Sec 179 was taken in year 1. So in theory it should be about as easy to explain the repayment of the credit at no interest as it would be to explain the phantom income to a business client. Of course, the problem arises in the implementation, since people seldom want to think about long-term consequenses of something that they like to think of on a year-to-year basis. I'm not preparing any returns claiming the Home Buyer's Credit, preferring to send anyone eligible to HRB or JH. But my suggestion to them would be to use the credit to, in order: 1) Pay down high-interest credit cards; 2) Pay down non-tax-deductible auto loans: 3) Pay down second mortgages or HELOC accounts: 4) Make additional principal payments on the home mortgage. Unfortunately, most of them are going to use it as a down payment on a hot tub, boat, or motorcycle and them gripe for the next 15 years about how the credit is costing them $500/yr.

If you really want to mess with their minds, paper clip the forms together and then put a staple over one prong of the paper clip. But only do this if the client owes money.

I used Ultra Tax before coming over to ATX, and they had an alternate "Forms Entry". You toggled using an icon at the top of the page. I used it, but found it cumbersome because you never knew what entries could be entered directly and what entries had to be entered via the worksheet. It was better than worksheet entry only, but still not as seamless as ATX. I'll be interested in hearing more about how Drake handles it, as that is the software I'll most likely go to if I ever give up on ATX.

Did she do any baby sitting in 2008? :)

You have two choices: 1) The default is to allocate income or loss based on the number of days each shareholder owned their stock times the percentage of ownership. 2) However, if all shareholders agree, you can make an election to treat the corporation as having two short years. Unless there's a significant difference in the amounts allcoated to the shareholders, it isn't worth the time & trouble to use the election.

---> #4 also reminds me of the non-client caller who says, "I have a question for you." I always want to say something smart like: "Oh, that's ok, I've already had one today. Thanks anyway! Click. <----- I've been working on a reply to the "I have a question for you." So far it goes something like this: Caller: "I have a quick question for you." Me: "I answer one question for free, but I charge for the second question and everything after that ." Caller" "How much do you charge?" Me: "$110 per hour. What's your second question and your billing address?"

Not necessarily so. We may be seeing the ones with the minor problems when compared with the ones they had to pass on. Who knows where they set the bar?