JohnH

Seems to me the FMV is one figure if the equipment is delivered to the scrap metal dealer and FMV is a a lower figure if the dealer picks it up where it sits. (Which I think agrees with Pacun's reasoning)

Also, the QCD must be done AFTER the person reaches 70.5. Simply making it in the year the person reached 70.5 would meet the RMD requirement, but to qualify as a QCD it must be done after the birthdate.

Start with email. Their reply gives you proof for your records that they received the message. If they don't reply, escalate to Certified Mail with Return Receipt.

This perspective of "investing the money myself rather than giving an interest-free loan to the government" brought back memories of how I actually handled the conversation many years ago (when the interest rates were high enough that it mattered). I'd usually take a look at the amount of interest/dividends that the taxpayer was already reporting. In cases where they actually had significant savings/investment income already, I'd have the conversation about dialing in the withholding to match the liability. But if they had negligible savings/investment income, I'd generally just tell them it's better to overpay than to owe when they file. Most of the time that would end the conversation, because they were unlikely to save/invest the difference and were just repeating a phrase they had heard somewhere, without any real appreciation for what it took to follow through.

Good question. I usually don't charge if it's fairly simple, but might do so if lots of requests start coming in. Drake produces a projection that shows what the difference would have been under the new tax law. But of course that's lonely relevant if the elements of income & deductions are roughly the same. Does ATX produce a similar analysis?

No matter the reason for the outcome, most unhappy clients are going to blame the preparer.

Thanks Judy. That closes the circle nicely.

@cbslee - sorry, I forgot you had started that previous thread. I should have just posted on it rather than starting a new topic.

Interesting point. So if the church is going to be forced to file UBIT anyhow, they may as well start charging those non-member commuters for parking as a means of offsetting the cost of paying the tax.

I sure hope you are correct. But if they actually try to enforce this rule, then church employees who receive mileage reimbursements for employment-related travel would have a hard time also claiming they walk to work. ECFA says they have contacted the office of Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX), Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, and the staffers insisted it was intentional. If so, this will mean that virtually every non-profit and tax exempt organization will have to report UBIT.

Recently I've been seeing lots of heat generated by the new tax on parking privileges for employees of churches and non-profit organizations. Just curious if others on this forum have an opinion on it. As I understand it, this tax will apply to all churches and non-profit organizations. It essentially assigns a value to the right to park on premises, even if the parking was free to begin with. Then the organization pays a tax of around 21% on the value of that perk. Can that possibly be the correct interpretation? That in no way levels any sort of playing field, because it doesn't apply to businesses who provide on-site parking to their employees. The provision seems to patently stupid to begin with, I'm surprised that even a politician could think it's a good idea. But maybe I'm the one missing the point.

I clicked on it and it came up as fillable. Maybe it's your browser? (I'm using IE)

@Catherine Does that include Chaos Theory?

Maybe his father-in-law needs to explain how it's deductible since he brought it up. (Generally, father-in-law tax advice isn't quite as reliable as other types, such as hairstylist or mechanic tax guidance. )

A linguistics professor was lecturing his class on negative polarity, negative concord, & litotes, so he stated: "In English, a double negative results in a positive. In many other languages, a double negative simply emphasizes the negative intent. But there is no language known to man in which a double positive produces a negative." From the back of the room, a student mumbled "Yeah, right"

Probably a balloon payment or an ARM reset on a commercial property or rental property. Maybe LLMAS will clarify. I had a very similar situation earlier this year. Had to take the banker to the mat, but they eventually found a way to accommodate the client.

So a positive thought about an electron is repulsive?

Chances are the bank will grant a reasonable extension of the loan (60-90 days would be good). But there are no guarantees, and they probably won't offer it unless the TP puts some pressure on them. The reason is, someone at the bank is going to have to explain the reason for the extension request and their higher-ups aren't likely to take kindly to their subordinates' lack of preparation. So it's easier for them to put the borrower under pressure, hopefully keeping the bank employees under the radar. It it's a long-time, profitable, cooperative client, I might suggest a telephone conference call with the banker & client both on the line. That's the only condition under which I'd speak with the banker. The purpose would be to point out to the banker why an extension/modification of the loan is necessary, and that I've seen other banks do it many times. It might also be an opportunity to point out that this would be a good time for the client to shop the loan around if their bank won't work with them. If it's a marginal client, I might just tell them when I can have the info ready and suggest that they take the timing up with the banker.

Just trying to spark some interesting conversation about current developments.

So, now you're amping up the humor.

Schedule 2+4 and 3+5 are obvious candidates to be combined on the same form. I think one of two things is likely happening here: 1) Someone is under orders from the current administration to create "post card-size forms"; or 2) Someone is intentionally producing something incredibly stupid in an effort to make the current administration look bad.

There will be another letter...

This is one of those areas where a copy of the Audit Techniques Guide can come in handy. Just give a copy of it to the prospective client and tell them "This is what the IRS is going to be looking for if you're audited. I'll be doing your accounting based on this document. Fees will be proportional to the work involved." Then, as LLMAS said, they will probably fire themselves before you ever get started. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/cashchapter10_210745.pdf

Time to announce fee increases? Or is the prospect of a fee increase, plus hearing about all their friends self-preparing and not itemizing due to the $25K StdDed, likely to cause more clients to try out TT?

Wonder if they will like the tax reduction? I suspect many will fail to recognize it, especially if their refund is less than the prior year. That will take some explaining, but I suspect some tax preparers won't bother with the explanation. Some won't explain because they're too busy; others won't explain because they're politically biased.