Double 8829/One Sch D

[Julie]

That should be "Double 8829/One Sch C"

What's the smoothest way to make ATX handle two offices-in-home for a single business? IRS wants a separate 8829 for each home, but ATX doesn't seem to want to cooperate.

This is a simple case: business owner sold his home and moved into another home. OIH in both homes. ATX wants to put all the interest on both 8829's, and if I just type in the numbers in the blue lines, the amounts are not subtracted from the Sch A.

I can do it by hand, and force the numbers, but I'd rather not do it that way. I'd like everything to be smoothly in place when I look at this next year (if I'm still using ATX by then).

I'm tired. There must be an easy, obvious way, and maybe tomorrow I'll be able to see it.

[TAXBILLY]

I couldn't figure out how to do it either. I just duplicated the return, printed out the two 8829s the way they should read and printed them. I then overidded whatever entries were affected.

If anyone knows how to do it let us know.

taxbilly

[jklcpa]

I tried a sample return & seemed to get both 8829's figures to flow to 1 Sch C. Here's what I did. I opened forms for 1040, C & 1st 8829. At upper-right of 8829 above the form, make sure that 8829 is linked to Sch C. Just below that, choose "Home #1" from the drop-down choices. Enter data.

Then go back to the Sch C and point to line 30. Use "jump" feature (the bunny). When the box opens, choose "add new form to add a 2nd linked 8829 to the Sch C. Then above that 8829, make sure to enter date in service, and choose "Home #2" from the drop-down. Enter data.

Using the above, I did see that totals from each were combined on line 30 of the one Sch C. I didn't try printing anything. The program had a red warning at top of 8829s that more than 1 8829 was linked to one Sch C, but I didn't see any red entries using the error-check feature.

I'd be particularly careful with the depreciation to verify that full year's deduction wasn't allowed on either residence. This might require overrides.

I'd be interested if you are successful with this procedure. I did not have this issue, but I do recall this question was asked on the old forum more than once.

Judy

[TAXBILLY]

Thanx for the info. I'll play with it and see if it works.

taxbilly

[Julie]

When I tried it, this is what happened:

ATX took one complete 8829, including the expenses and depreciation, then went to the other one. Problem is that most of the depreciation should have been disallowed, and the depreciation on the first home was being allowed in full, before the interest on the second home.

I asked the same question both here and on the NAEA board, and took the advice I got there, which worked. I moved all the interest, points, and expenses to the first 8829, and had only the depreciation on the second. That forced ATX to take all the interest and taxes, but apply the limitation to the depreciation, as it should.

--Julie

I tried a sample return & seemed to get both 8829's figures to flow to 1 Sch C. Here's what I did. I opened forms for 1040, C & 1st 8829. At upper-right of 8829 above the form, make sure that 8829 is linked to Sch C. Just below that, choose "Home #1" from the drop-down choices. Enter data.

Then go back to the Sch C and point to line 30. Use "jump" feature (the bunny). When the box opens, choose "add new form to add a 2nd linked 8829 to the Sch C. Then above that 8829, make sure to enter date in service, and choose "Home #2" from the drop-down. Enter data.

Using the above, I did see that totals from each were combined on line 30 of the one Sch C. I didn't try printing anything. The program had a red warning at top of 8829s that more than 1 8829 was linked to one Sch C, but I didn't see any red entries using the error-check feature.

I'd be particularly careful with the depreciation to verify that full year's deduction wasn't allowed on either residence. This might require overrides.

I'd be interested if you are successful with this procedure. I did not have this issue, but I do recall this question was asked on the old forum more than once.

Judy