jklcpa

You'll have to attach the POA to an 8453 and mail that in. You should keep these additional points in mind in deciding whether her signature is acceptable or not: Does the father's situation meet one of those listed in treas reg sec 1.6012-1(a)(5)? That criteria is listed in pub 947 and the instructions to the 2848. If this is a durable POA, does it specifically grant her the function of signing tax returns on his behalf? Of if a 2848 is on file granting powers to 2017, in line 5a for other acts authorized, is the box checked for "sign a return"?

If daughter has only a standard financial POA then daughter hasn't ever been given authority to represent either of them in any tax matters or to sign any returns UNLESS that general POA has the wording that is contained in the IRS' tax POAs. IF daughter has a tax POA to handle Dad's tax matters for the 2017 tax year, then daughter can sign for him, and jasdlm is correct that the Dad's signature is all that is needed on the return as surviving spouse unless they would be filing MFS for 2017, then daughter would sign deceased mom's return as executrix and need the form 1310. Tax POAs can be granted for future years, and if I recall correctly, it can only extend out three future tax years.

Nah, I started to look for a cite, got frustrated & just googled. I'm operating on 4 hours of sleep thanks to my computer's clock thinking that yesterday was the end of DST. It was wrong yesterday morning and into the afternoon so I changed the time. Then sometime in the wee hours when I was engrossed in a return, it compounded the problem by trying to fix itself on top of my intervention. When I thought it was time for the dog's last medication, I strolled out to the kitchen and discovered it was actually 3:15 a.m. Adding to that was an early first appointment with a client that annoyingly shows up very, very early for appts, like 45 mins early when I was still in the shower the last time.

From this IRS page https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-required-minimum-distributions-rmds

If he is a full time student, sec 152(f)(5) allows for special treatment of scholarships of a qualifying child that is "a child of the taxpayer" that allows the scholarship to be excluded from the support test. This article from the Journal of Accountancy describes the section pretty well, starting in paragraph 3 where it says: With that in mind and if he is a full time student, if he didn't provide more than 1/2 his own support, and if all the other tests are met, he will still be a qualifying child of his parents and they should claim him as their dependent.

Agree with Abby. The most important thing is to make sure the business is reporting all income, and unless the business does 100% of its business with this one credit card processor, Paypal, Amazon, etc, then it is hightly unlikely that there aren't sales using other payment methods. I don't think the IRS ties these in and would be very difficult because, not only does the form include sales taxes and tips, it also includes cash back to customers that use a debit card at checkout. Sounds like a reconciling nightmare to me.

I think Lion's time includes the other assembly time too. If her printer was *that* slow, I hope she'd be buying a new one.

That's wonderful news! Congratulations to you on the new grandchild and to her parents to have her home. <3

New client's 1098 shows this paid out of escrow but not in the actual box on the 1098. IRS page says the corrections were supposed to be out by 3/15, and the corrected forms filed with IRS by the due date of returns. Has anyone here taken the deduction without having the corrected form? If you reported it, did you attach the 1098 or any other explanation?

Check this out! He blocked all 7 shots after stepping in as emergency goalie. https://deadspin.com/blackhawks-play-36-year-old-local-accountant-as-emergen-1824199592

Taser would be fun and multi-purpose too. We could zap those trying to escape the "Rita" hugs. Dog shock collar would work too. Give 'em a jolt with every stoopid question or annoying comment.

You can always print the topic and save to the client's file with your other note, make a reference to the title, save a link to it in a Word doc or similar, or bookmark it. I never remember to add things like that to my notes and I should.

Alex is a zombie and has *ahem* lurked enough to know we're all more than a little nuts.

The basis is the compensation that was added to the W-2. Basically, they were paid in stock at FMV instead of in cash for their bonus. Think of it in terms similar to dividends that are reinvested - reported as "paid" with a dollar amount but the taxpayer never sees the money because it buys the shares, and it's compensation that is taxed at ordinary rates. Obviously, you would have to prorate the compensation if only sold a portion was sold. At least with RSU's they aren't added to the W-2 until they vest because there is some risk of not meeting the vesting requirement, like if they leave the employer the shares could be forefeited.

Drake's program wouldn't cause this. Even though you say Drake is the only new program, do you have any programs set to auto-update, or running any other AV like Malwarebytes? It might only be a conflict with another program that updated and not a virus or malware infection that turned it off. A conflict shouldn't switch your setting over to auto update though. I'd check the list of installed updates and installed programs through Control Panel to see if anything pops out there. Run scans through any AV programs for a start.

The employee gets the shares when released to them at full vesting, but they don't have to sell and can continue to hold them. In my client's case, award was 2013, fully vested in 2016 and shares released to him, and then he sold in 2017. He finally understands that if he continues to hold the shares beyond vesting, that he will have a gain or loss on Sch D because of changes in share price from the vesting date to date of sale. If your client didn't get a 1099-B, then you have nothing to report other than to enter the W-2 with the value of the released shares added in to his comp as ordinary income. Keep in mind that the vesting date is used to determine whether it's short or long, because the vesting is when he actually get the shares and has control over them. If they choose to sell at the same time as vesting as we sometimes see with NQ stock options, then you have basis equal to the comp added to the W-2 that ends up with a small cap loss because of the selling expenses incurred. This is a pretty good summary of how these work, when/how a sale might occur, and how the taxes withheld can be paid: https://us.etrade.com/knowledge/education/stock-plan/understanding-restricted-performance-stock

Posting to say that I can see from your email addy that you appear to be a legit preparer. Since most new people don't post introductions, we ae leery to help new members that might be from the public looking for free advice, and some might be hesitant to reply. Welcome to the forum.

I just finished a return with RSUs given as performance awards, and this sounds identical to what I was working with, or an NQSO that are also reported with code V. It was coded "V", right? These have a vesting requirement that must be met, and they are "released" at 100% vesting. At that point, the FMV of all shares released is added as compensation, with some of the shares are held back to cover the tax withholding, and employee gets the balance of the shares. The shares aren't sold at that point, so there shouldn't be any reporting on Sch D. There isn't an AMT adjustment like for ISOs, but the additional amounts can throw a taxpayer into AMT if the award is large enough. I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about ISOs because tax isn't charged on those until they are sold. With RSUs and nonqualified stock options, the taxes are withheld at vesting when they add to compensation, just exactly as you described. My client's this year was only $28K and has been over $100K some years, and that make me nervous because he doesn't understand and I worry that he might not give me all the documents. This year he DID sell some, doesn't understand how all of this works, and so I had a heck of a time getting what I needed. He also insisted that he only received company shares in one way and from this one source. It turns out his one source was his Employee Stock Ownership Plan that he buys shares through a pre-tax payroll deduction and that his company matches. Guess what, he sold some of those too! I kept telling him he had two different ways that he was receiving company shares, and he kept saying 'no'. An hour or so later, he figured it out...sort of. At least he now knows two sources of shares.

Other countries around the world are calling this extortion and an illegal tax, and the Netherlands recently expelled Eritrea's top diplomat from the country over this tax. I would highly doubt that this is eligible for any sort of credit here but I couldn't find anything specific. If you can't find anything in your searches, try searching for it's other name "Eritrean Diaspora Tax". From one of the articles linked below: " In December 2011, a UN security council resolution (pdf) called on Eritrea to “cease using extortion, threats of violence, fraud and other illicit means to collect taxes outside of Eritrea from its nationals or other individuals of Eritrean descent”. I googled for "Eritrean Diaspora Tax", also called the "2% tax", and came up with a lot of articles. Here are a couple of those: This one from 2015 has a lot of information: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jun/09/eritrea-diaspora-tax-uk-investigated-metropolitan-police This from Jan 2018, seems the view hasn't changed: https://qz.com/1183766/netherlands-expels-eritreas-top-diplomat-for-diaspora-tax/ Sorry, not much help, but I found this interesting and had to read about it.

@BulldogTom, thank you, I really appreciate the input, and I do think 267 is the key. You are correct that the trust gives trustee wide latitude where the trustee has ultimate discretion and is left to make the decision on whether income is distributed or adds to corpus. She will not distribution income; it all stays in the trust so the trust pays the tax. This is the loosest trust wording ever, with only a couple of sentences in one paragraph within the will.

I hear you on the web of connection to other clients. This is a relative of a relative of an owner's wife to one of my business write ups too. This trust's only other asset is a checking account, so no other income at all. Trying not to ignore this, but I'm not sure yet how to report it. Every time I try to research, all the hits I get are coming up with rentals that are in living trusts or (originally) rentals of the decedent that passed through into a trust. I don't expect others to research for me, but I'm not finding what I need. Maybe I'm using the wrong key words and searching for the wrong thing, or have found my answer with 267. Frustrating!

Do local issues require it, meaning the local would be looking for things like 1099s? I don't think it actually hurts to issue except that it would be late at this point.

It sounds like they are renting it, not just overseeing idle home until sold. Is that right? The determining factor would be if this activity rises to the level of a trade or business, and I'd say probably not since their intention isn't for ongoing profits from rental but is being rented because it hasn't yet sold. If that is the case, I wouldn't issue a 1099 to the property manager.

Mom's estate left a portion in trust for one son, and his sister is trustee. Son may never see any money from this trust, and son's adult child is named to receive the trust's assets at his passing, not his estate. For purposes of a "rental" house that trust purchased this year and that son now lives in, do the related party rules apply to this since trust beneficiary's sister is the fiduciary? Are there similar related party rental loss limitations for irrev. trusts like 280A for individuals? Rent is a set monthly amount, and I have to ask how it was determined and if fair value, but what if it's not? Let's not get into the fact that if this is below fair value rent, then she breached her fiduciary duty to protect assets of the trust, or that she shouldn't be the one collecting the rents since they are related. Now back to my quandry - The initial up front payments of insurance and taxes caused negative cash flow by 12/31. Do I mark this as all personal use because beneficiary is related to the fiduciary, or personal if it turns out to be below fair value, or report this in some other way? Yeah, head is spinning with end of March confusion that has totally set in with this one.