BLACK BART Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 On 2/27/2017 at 9:40 AM, Catherine said: Client helped out her sister-in-law briefly while s-i-l was swamped at her office. Did some filing and copying, basically office grunt work. NOT in the business of hiring herself out as temporary office help. S-i-l gave her a 1099-MISC (rightly) with total in Box 7. Except to my thinking it should have been Box 3, and not subject to SE tax. I'm thinking I need to do a C-EZ, show the 1099, back it off, and then show on Line 21. Yes? No? Other? I'm starting to over-think this one - stop me! http://www.bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Endnotes/TC_Memo_1992-727.pdf Unless it's an amount they can't stand, I'll generally go with the C-EZ since attempting to get anybody to change a 1099 or issue a W-2 instead is on the order of trying to achieve world peace. But here's something from "way back in the nineties" (John A. Batok, Tax Court Memo, 1992-727) that shores up your position. And, after all, would I dare argue with the enlightened entity who's familiar with "the singularities of X"? Certainly not! And I would've bet a hundred bucks nobody could answer that dang thing I stole from a mathematics site. How'd you do it ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RitaB Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, BLACK BART said: http://www.bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Endnotes/TC_Memo_1992-727.pdf Unless it's an amount they can't stand, I'll generally go with the C-EZ since attempting to get anybody to change a 1099 or issue a W-2 instead is on the order of trying to achieve world peace. But here's something from "way back in the nineties" (John A. Batok, Tax Court Memo, 1992-727) that shores up your position. Do you wonder if the guy coming back with $7,000 in business expenses for $4,000 in income helped them decide he wasn't in business? Asking for a friend. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 2 hours ago, BLACK BART said: And, after all, would I dare argue with the enlightened entity who's familiar with "the singularities of X"? Certainly not! And I would've bet a hundred bucks nobody could answer that dang thing I stole from a mathematics site. How'd you do it ? Quartic surfaces are super-cool but definitely weird (and some of the "simpler" ones look a whole lot like the descriptions of sub-atomic orbitals). A few decades ago I *might* have been able to at least tackle the equations that define them. So I side-stepped your entire statement by running for cover to the Planck limit, where all lengths lose locality. That's how: by having a brain full of only loosely-related nerdly trivia. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANRVAN Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Obviously, W-2 should have been issued. There might be a case for line 21, but that could ultimately be decided by tax court, IRS will probably not buy it. Ron mentioned the options to push it back to sister-in-law with SS-8 or 8919. Sounds like client needs to be informed of all options and possible outcome of each as it is not a black and white case. Has client addressed the situation to sister-in-law? How much income are you dealing with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BART Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 22 hours ago, RitaB said: Do you wonder if the guy coming back with $7,000 in business expenses for $4,000 in income helped them decide he wasn't in business? Asking for a friend. I dunno - I never even read the details; just remembered it from an old seminar and the only thing that rang a bell was the court deciding it's NOT subject to SE. Probably doesn't make much difference anyway though 'cause everybody's got a different outlook and IRS is not (I think) required to follow a TC memo. They'd probably fight this stuff from trench to trench if the money was compelling. 20 hours ago, Catherine said: ...So I side-stepped your entire statement by running for cover to the Planck limit, where all lengths lose locality... Oh...okay, yeah; I had forgotten all about those Planck length-losing localities. Now I've got it. Thanx. 2 hours ago, DANRVAN said: ...Ron mentioned the options to push it back to sister-in-law with SS-8 or 8919... You guys have got guts; somebody would have to pull a gun to make me suggest confronting my sis-in-law with an SS-8.... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANRVAN Posted March 8, 2017 Report Share Posted March 8, 2017 On 03/06/2017 at 3:57 PM, RitaB said: Do you wonder if the guy coming back with $7,000 in business expenses for $4,000 in income helped them decide he wasn't in business? Asking for a friend. Tax court disallowed $5,000 as personal auto (commuting), the rest was unsubstantiated except for $120 in tools, which court recognized was not enough for to itemize on Schedule A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted March 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2017 20 hours ago, BLACK BART said: Oh...okay, yeah; I had forgotten all about those Planck length-losing localities. Now I've got it. Thanx. It's actually pretty fascinating. If you take a length of rope - say a foot. Cut it in half, you have six inches of rope. Cut it in half again, three inches. And it *seems* like you can keep doing that ad infinitum - except you can't. At the Planck length, whatever you are trying to divide LOSES any definitive location and instead is suddenly everywhere *in the universe* at once. No locality. Dr. Feinman once said of quantum physics that (and I am paraphrasing here) it is utterly preposterous and ludicrous, and in fact the *only* thing going for the entire field of study is that it is undoubtably true. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion EA Posted March 8, 2017 Report Share Posted March 8, 2017 Nice explanation, Catherine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BART Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 11 hours ago, Catherine said: It's actually pretty fascinating. If you take a length of rope - say a foot. Cut it in half, you have six inches of rope. Cut it in half again, three inches. And it *seems* like you can keep doing that ad infinitum - except you can't. At the Planck length, whatever you are trying to divide LOSES any definitive location and instead is suddenly everywhere *in the universe* at once. No locality. Dr. Feinman once said of quantum physics that (and I am paraphrasing here) it is utterly preposterous and ludicrous, and in fact the *only* thing going for the entire field of study is that it is undoubtably true. 7 hours ago, Lion EA said: Nice explanation, Catherine. Yes it was. And quite impressive too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.