JohnH

I'm convinced they think of lots of things when legislation is drafted, but the timing of their thinking has a strong correlation to when & in what amount the campaign contributions come rolling in. Technical corrections become somewhat of an annuity stream for campaign financing.

But for the present, just one more addition to the most expensive welfare family in the world.

But in the snow it's smart to wrap some barbed wire around your bare feet, just to get a little traction.

Do you have the link to the Drake Forum? If not, here it is: https://forums.drakesoftware.com/forums/ Be sure to post your ATX-to-Drake questions on the sub forum here. Several of us switched over in the past few years and can probably be of help. I predict that you won't have any questions after the first season, provide you actually spend the time to learn Drake. You'll probably decide to switch to Drake completely and not look back, if your experience is like mine.

Can't fix that. When you develop a workaround, you often have to make allowances for extra input. The key question is, does the extra input produce a worthwhile result out of proportion to the benefit gained. If so, then it's critical to develop the discipline to use it wisely.

Well, as long as the note stays with the individual file, you're accomplishing what you want. The presence of an entry in that field alerts you to the fact that there's an ITIN on the return that needs attention.

You might want to keep studying it. I can't think of a reason for a vendor to provide a "Custom Field" unless the end purpose was to make any entry in that field unique to each individual tax return. Adding a column on a report is just a way of displaying the entry in that field for each return.

Great question. This morning I'm no longer digging. It's settled in my mind. My initial reasons for continuing to dig last night were: 1) Some knowledgeable people I know (both personally and on some web sites) don't make the distinction. I was just making sure that nothing had changed - 1978 to now is a very long time. 2) Sometimes my OCD just takes over. 3) I was watching Bing Bang Theory (what a great season finale !), so anyone watching that sitcom just naturally allows their brain to wander to all sorts of odd places.

You're correct, but the 1978 W&L Law Review recognizes both types of cards and clearly distinguishes between them. It is actually spot on regarding this issue and provides a clear answer to my question (unless something new has developed in the interim). In any case, I think we're on solid ground to deduct the Home Depot charges for the cash basis taxpayer, even though we still don't deduct the open account charges with most other suppliers until the bill is paid.

Leave it to you folks to steer me in the right direction. After searching on Rev Rul 78-38 I found this gem, dating all the way back to 1978. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwj4ore1lPzaAhXBm-AKHUJBAdMQFggtMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D3009%26context%3Dwlulr&usg=AOvVaw1NMoONCoUbPXKPiXg6vQiS&httpsredir=1&article=3009&context=wlulr After a cursory reading, it appears the issue revolves around the type of agreement under which the store card is issued. Whether a cash basis taxpayer can deduct an expense with a card issued under a "bipartate" agreement is highly questionable, but it is definitely deductible using a card issued under a" tripartate" agreement. Now I'm searching to see if I can find anything more recent to either back this up or negate it. It's beginning to make sense to me now, and I see why there are various opinions on the matter. Thanks to everyone for your input.

Max: That's the issue. I have one reference from a CPA firm that differentiates between open accounts and store credit cards. Their view is that store credit cards underwritten by credit card issuers are essentially the same thing as general-purpose credit cards, because of the existence of the third party. Fact is, the money is owed to the credit card issuer rather than to the store. My problem is finding clear IRS guidance either way.

Can't believe the typo I overlooked. My second sentence should read: When he charges expenses to his credit card (Visa, Amex, Master Card), we deduct December purchases in the year of the charge, rather than the year of PAYMENT. Thanks for the link, Judy. That helps.

From time to time I second guess myself on this one. Taxpayer is a landscaper reporting on the cash basis. When he charges expenses to his credit card (Visa, Amex, Master Card), we deduct December purchases in the year of the charge, rather than the year of sale. He also has open accounts with local nurseries and equipment dealers. Those expenses are deducted when the payment is made rather than when the charge is incurred. But then he also has a hybrid situation. His Home Depot branded charge card can only be used at Home Depot. I have been operating under the assumption that those charges are also deductible in the year of the charge, rather than time of payment. My reason is based on the fact that the Home Depot credit card is underwritten by Citibank, so this is essentially the same as a credit card charge rather than an open account with a specific vendor. Most years the year-over-year ending balances net one another out, so the issue isn't particularly relevant. But in 2017 the end-of-year balance on the Home Depot card is much greater than the opening balance, so it has a significant effect on the tax return. Thus the second-guessing. I've never been able to find IRS guidance on that position, only info from a couple of CPA web sites. Just wondering if anyone here can offer an opinion on when the Home Depot charges are deductible.

After all is said and done, you'll probably spend another $900 worth of your time trying to collect and you still won't get any money. She's a shyster, and pretty good at it. Trying to get clients like this do the right thing is like trying to teach a pig to sing. After all your efforts, all you'll have is bad music and a frustrated pig.

I haven't used ATX since the 2012 meltdown, so I don't know if this is still possible. But when I looked back at 2011, I noticed it has the ability to set up custom fields. So if you set up a custom field such as "Has ITIN", then all you'd need to do is remember to make an entry in that field for any return that has an ITIN anywhere. Then any time you sort on that field (either within ATX or in an exported Excel file), you'd at lest narrow the list down to people who are likely to need to renew. You might even be able to enter expiration dates (or maybe year) in that field to make it sort in a more useful manner. Personally, I'd just use "year" to keep it simple. This won't help much in terms of extracting the info right now, but with a little forethought and time spent in the off season, you might find that a useful feature in future years. And in the process of making the entries now, you'd essentially be extracting current year info, which you're going to have to do anyhow if you want the data now. Of course, you'd need to be sure the program carries data from that field into the next year when it rolls over.

I had the same question. If the date can be exported to an Excel or csv file, you can then sort/select/extract on any information you wish. It's amazing what Excel can do, especially if you know how to use some of the "functions".

We each must use whatever the software provides us, but I give Drake a huge edge on this feature (as well as many others). I write a macro for the 8283 one time, then any time I want to produce the form, its runs with a single keystroke. Once the macro is written, I just modify the name and address info for the next one, so I wind up with a separate macro for Goodwill, a different one for KF, another one for Community Foundation, etc. This helps considerably because I see Goodwill receipts from 4 or 5 different locations. I have to keep a cross reference for the macros, but that's just a matter of filling in cells in a spreadsheet and printing it out each time it's updated. I'd like to buy everything from my clients for what it's actually worth and sell it back to them for what they think it's worth. Wish there was a macro or master form to set THAT process into motion.

I see you did it while causing the minimum amount of loren ipsum dolor. Thanks, Eric.

Wish I'd seen this two weeks ago. I was running a preliminary 2017 return for a client with an S corp, and couldn't figure out why their net profit was so far off my rough estimates. After double-checking my line-by-lne entries, I eventually found depreciation was the culprit. Finally I started looking at the assets individually, and realized there was an asset purchased in November with bonus depreciation being recorded at 100% rather than 50%. Felt a little foolish after I found it, since I had enough information to start there if I'd stopped and thought it through rather than just dive in.

Wow! I was adjusting 37K down to $25K. Compared to yours, mine is little more than a rounding error.

(wrong quote. See next message)

I ran the numbers (via a shortcut), and am positive the change doesn't affect anything on the 2016 return other than the carryforward. Nothing would ever come of this if the 2016 or 2017 return were audited, aside from validating the year-over-year mismatch. I didn't think of attaching a statement to the 2017 return, but that's certainly a valid suggestion.

Long story, but client produced some additional info this year which caused me to reduce the cost basis on a 2016 transaction which had produced a sizable capital loss. The result was a change in the capital loss carryforward from 2016 to 2017. There was no effect on the tax liability for 2016 - only the reduction (less negative) in the available capital loss carryforward. (Don't we just love Limited Partnerships and the smarmy financial advisors who peddle them to clueless clients?) In preparing the 2017 return, I reduced the amount of the loss carryforward on Schedule D line 14 to the correct figure, so the 2017 return shows a figure which does not agree with the 2016 Schedule D Line 16 adjusted by Line 21. I'm wondering, what's the point in amending the 2016 return? I know it would be different if the change in the loss carryforward benefitted the client. But as it is, I don't really care that the 2016 ending and 2017 beginning figures don't agree, the client doesn't care, and why would IRS care since the loss carryforward is less negative? I certainly can't find any instructions to amend in this case, although I find an indirect instruction that implies I don't need to amend. Does anybody have any good reason to suggest amending 2016, aside from OCD?

Jack is right on target. There's more to this, and you're buying a problem by getting involved at any level. Keep pushing her back to the original preparer to explain and correct. That's what they were paid to do. Speculation is just adding to the confusion.

Yes, NC recognizes S-corps. No income tax is due. You'll file the CD-401S (the CD-405 is for C-corps). Not paying the $200 Franchise Tax is not a big deal - you'll probably owe a $20 FTP penalty and some interest at abnout 1/5 of 1% per month. They might invalidate the extension and charge another 5% per month FTF penalty, but I'm not sure about that. But all in all, I'd guess the entire P&I is no more than $40 at present. Incidentally, the franchise tax is not pro-rated for short-year returns. If you don't have any bonus depreciation to deal with, the return is fairly simple. Remember there's the NC-NA to file if any shareholders are non-residents. Finally, don't forget to file the Annual Report. It can be attached to the corp return or it can be filed directly at the NC Sec of State web site. Fee is $25 (or maybe $20 if filed on the web site).