JohnH

Merry Christmas to everyone on this forum, and wishing you all a Happy & Prosperous New Year.

I'll yield to KC's knowledge of cooking technique, but I'm sticking to my guns on the rest of what I said.

The reason the eggs stick has nothing to do with the bacon - the cast iron pan simply needs seasoning.. And speaking of seasoning, allowing little endearments at breakfast could add some spice to the meal.

And to think that we criticize politicians mercilessly for no good reason. I'm ashamed of some of the things I've said about them in the past. Thank you for taking the time to point this out, how else would we have learned of such a noble act? I'm sure the California legislators are just too humble to boast about rasiing their own taxes.

This is an interesting thread. It has me talking to myself. I thought the new electronic notuce requirements only applied to organizations who would have been required to file 990 or 990EZ if their receipts exceed $25K, but are now required to submit the electronic form. I was thinking that any other organization exempt from 990 filing was not affected by the change. It's also been my understanding that church day care centers, even those providing day care for the general public, were exempt from filing 990 if the day care center meets the "affiliated organization" and "tax-exempt purpose" tests. I'm going to be interested in seeing other replies.

I agree with Gail & OldJack. If the Day Care is an affiliated organization and furthers the tax-exempt purpose of the church then it is probably not required to file a form 990. This may be of some help - see pages 229 & 230 (pages 4 & 5 of the pdf). http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/topicg02.pdf

I've graduated from only needing appliances for the bribe. Since tax season is approaching I'm beginning to focus on actual functionality & value.

Question for those of you who use TTO. I've been buying 1040 Office and Total Kleinrock Office (TKO) over the past couple of years. TKO includes Zillion Forms, W2 & 1099, plus Kleinrock's research resources. Total cost is about $230 less than TTO, and I've never been able to figure out what TTO offers that I don't get with this combination. Has anyone done this comparison and may know what TTO provides that you don't get by buying 1040 Office plus TKO? Just for info, I don't efile so the e-filing benefits aren't important to me (yet). This year it's even more important for me to find out since I may buy TKO but switch to another vendor for my 1040 program, and I'm hoping someone can provide some insight into this.

Eli: Where were they deducted on the return? If on 2106, then I'd agree that most of them are not deductible. However, many police officers work off-duty and some of these items (althouhg not the clothing or haircuts) might be at least partially deductible on schedule C if she receives 1099's for any of the off-duty work and if the expense can be directly traced to the off-duty work..

Hope your birthday is a great one Erc. I too want to express my appreciation for all you do for us with this Forum. And thanks to Zeke for reminding us that we need to support it as well. I just made another donation and hope others will remember to do the same. Going forward, I hope Erc will let us know if there is ever a time in the future when we need to step up with some more $.

Is the "scared cows" a reference to the deductions, to the politicians, or both?

Earlier this year I bought "Click to COnvert" after seeing it recommended on the ATX knowledgebase. I used it to password protect some info I had sent out from time-to-time, although I'm getting less inclined to even do that now. The price was about $90, and it has several other handy features. http://www.clicktoconvert.com/index.html If you'll do a seach, I think you'll find one or two other strings that discuss this topic and they will have the names of some other solutions as well.

Not sure that is their reason, but it may be a foreshadow of things to come in the penaty area. In this bill, the penalties are proposed as a means of "paying for" a specific set of tax reductions for military and volunteer firefighters. As far as I know, it is rare for penalties to be proposed for a specific purpose of this type. Shouldn't the purpose of penalties be to punish wrongdoing and encourage compliance? It makes me wonder if IRS will come under (or is already under) political pressure to take a harder line on penalty forgiveness because some in Washington as beginning to regard them as a source of expected revenue - a sort of "back door" system of taxation operating in parallel to the existing system. BTW, it's in its 2nd reading in the Senate as of Monday.

I think this has the potential to be a diificult season, for many of the reasons you've cited plus some. As a matter of fact, I ran across and article and I'm emailing the link to some clients on a selective basis to hopefully lay out some of the new issues we are dealing with. I guess it's OK to post the link here. If not, someone give me a heads up and I'll remove it: http://www.mcgrathnorth.com/firm_publicati...ew.asp?pubID=45

Old Jack: No argument there. taxbilly: Generally I take the same approach with respect to pending legislation. However, in this case forewarned might be forearmed. (I've had one inquiry about this already). If the legislation applies to future returns, then anyone currently having unfiled returns would just need to get in compliance going forward and could get up to date as they can get to it. However, if the penalty is retroactive to all unfiled years, then there would be a short window of opportunity to get in compliance IF it doesn't take effect until 1/1/08. The filer is facing a $1,200 per year per shareholder penalty - wonder what they'd be willing to pay in preparation fees to avoid that fate.

To partially answer my own question, the answer is "maybe yes" or "maybe no". Since the legislations hasn't been passed yet, it's possible that the wording could be changed before final passage. So the timing of how the penalty applies, and whether it applies to prior years, is anybody's guess as of today, Dec 2. Whatever the case, it's a whopper of a change if it passes in its present form. The proposed penalty for a late-filed S-corp return (which is presently zero) will jump to $100 per month per shareholder, up to a maximum of 12 months.

Over on the TMI board, we are discussing the new penalty provisions for late-filing of S-Corp returns contained in H.R. 3997. The way I read it, the new significantly higher penalty applies to returns required to be filed after the bill is enacted, so that means the first year it would apply to would be 2007 Forms 1120S. However, one poster has stated that it applies to any 1102S filed after 12/31/07 (regardless of year). Has anyone run across this in a seminar (or read the bill) and can shed some light on the question?

I received my 2007 ATX software disk today, which I thought was odd since I haven't decided yet to renew. When I called, they said they were sending out the disks but you had to purchase in order to unlock & use it. Right now it's just sitting on my desk since I'm still contemplating what I'm going to do while evaluating other programs. Drake has its benefits and TaxSlayer seems to offer the same sort of personal attention that made ATX what it was in the distant past. Of course, there's still the learning curve to think about and the different input screens so I'm doing what I do best - procrastinating. For me, the main problem is that I switched over from Ultra Tax a couple of years ago and it had me spoiled. I can also switch back fairly easliy by just getting the 2005 & 2006 programs & rolling over twice without having to go through any conversion process, other than manually entering the new 2005 & 2006 clients The only obstacle is the price differential, but they're talking about making some sort of deal with me. They gave us a pretty good discount when we were converted over from Microvision a few years back so I know they are willing to work with preparers on price - we will see what happens. As I said, I'm a good procrastinator. (I thought I'd toss in the names of the other programs just so BJM doesn't feel uneasy talking about other software. And even if I do change I still plan to stick around on this forum - it's too valuable a resource for all of us)

How about Hip, Hip, Hooray Day?

Too bad it doesn't work that way for all of us. If my value went up every time I did something stupid, I'd be worth more than Bill Gates & Warren Buffet combined.

That's very helpful information. Sorry you had to learn the hard way, but maybe a word to the wise for the rest of us. I have a Rev drive that I was going to install, but now I believe I'll rethink that whole concept. Seems as though a removable hard drive is much more practical for critical data anyhow, plus regular interim backups on flash drives for day-to-day stuff.

I'd be all for taxing beauty. Assuming that system had something comparable to the EIC, I'd be in line for huge refunds every year.

The difference between the two, in my opinion, is significant. I also agree that everyone should pay less tax, but the only thing I can do about it is advocate for changes. There is no mechanism for me to pay less tax no matter how sincerely I believe it should be so. On the other hand, if I sincerely believe that I'm not personally paying enough tax, there is a mechanism for me to assuage my guilt. It's in place specifically for people who hold such opinions and actually have the courage to act on their stated convictions. So if I'm willing to publicly complain that I'm not paying enough tax, I should have enough character to take advantage of the opportunity to take demonstrable action. Maybe even to set an example in the hopes that others of like minds will follow - now there's a novel idea. Otherwise I'm just posturing and strutting for the media attention it will get me without any real intention of doing anything remotely constructive about the "problem".

And to think I was so crass as to suggest that he (and others like him) might be nothing more than a publicity-seeking windbag unwilling to back up his words with actual deeds. Should I be ashamed of myself for suggesting such a thing?

If you use a FMV less than the $250K, then you should have it backed up very well with independent appraisals or other third-party evidence. Of course, if you do document a FMV less that the $250K loan amount, you need to take into account there could be big problems with the lender if the loan defaults, because the client probably provided the bank all sorts of documentation to prove a FMV greater than $250K in order to induce them to loan him the money in the first place. Looks like your client is stuck on the horns of a dilemma, and you probably need to be careful you don't find yourself in a similiar position by trying too hard to help him out. People who get into desperate straits sometimes take others down with them, even when they don't intend to do so.