jklcpa

Here's the spot to post and have an opportunity to be the Tax Star for week #4! What to post - Post something about your week, a kooky client, wacky situation that happened in your office, or whatever you want to share with us here that brought smiles, laughs, exasperation, or appreciation and gratitude from those around you. It's ok to chat here too, but those won't count as official entries. If there's a lot of chatter, those will be marked as "nonvoting". If your story is in another topic, make mention or link to it here. Nominate other members and tell us why the person should be considered. How it works - Valid posts are those made through 3/16/18 at 11:59pm ET and must be about something that happened during this current week. Voting will continue through the next day, 3/17/18 until 11:59pm ET. Vote for your favorite Tax Kook/Aficionado by clicking one of the positive emoticons of "like", "thanks" or "haha" within this topic. If referring to posts in other topics, reactions made there don't count. Thumbs down and angry faces won't be counted. The winner will be the member that earns the highest number of positive reactions for any one post within this topic. For members having multiple posts in one week, the posts will be considered as stand-alone entries; votes not tallied across the multiple posts.

Hmm, "unmapped exception" isn't any help at all to figure out where the error is. Did you see this KB article for ATX & Taxwise returns for that error code? It lists entries on some specific forms that could be problematic if it isn't a forms update issue. https://support.cch.com/kb/solution.aspx/000043113

I donated right after you posted, just didn't announce it!

Oh, and as far as PA, I'm sure as a PA preparer that you know PA doesn't require joint filing but allows it as a matter of convenience to the married filers. Did husband actually establish PA residency on 12/1, because you said he was stationed in CA all year. I think it is possible for him to settle on the purchase of the home but not yet establish PA residency. It may be that the husband has no filing requirement in PA for 2017, and the wife should file MFS in PA as a PY for the one month of Dec.

The first question I have is whether you've established where the husband's state of domicile was for the first 11 months of 2017. Did I miss that piece of information, or is that still up for debate? If it is not NJ, then this client may be better off filing separate NJ returns because he wouldn't have any NJ-sourced income. NJ generally requires the return to use the same filing status as the federal, but it will allow separate returns in the case where one is a resident and the other full year nonresident. With the way NJ includes all income for the entire year on a joint return to calculate the tax and then prorate for the portion of income from NJ, it is a way that the state taxes gets more of the income into the higher brackets.

Ah, I see now why you asked, and thanks for clarifying. Sorry, my software doesn't have a screen with any notation like that, in fact no preprinted line at all. As Ron said, I'd just type it in on a blank line.

Abby, yer doin' it all wrong! It's been too many years for me to remember how ATX handled the state tax deduction where none, some, or all may be partially allocated as directly related, depending on if the state includes or excludes the foreign income. Blah, blah, blah, and so forth. I don't see how this could ever be automatic because it doesn't relate to the Sch A deduction. Are you not doing calculations for this? Or is it really automatic in ATX? I got sick of looking at this particular return because after the FTC, I then had the analysis and annualization for the state's version of the 2210 and underpayment penalty where the "quarter's" dates do not conform to the federal quarters and dates for reporting on the 2210 annualization. That return was thrown back in the stack for final review when I can look at it fresh again.

How is this COD income related to the partnership you eluded to? Was the credit card in the partnership name with COD income to the partnership itself? COD income on a K-1 goes on line 11 with code "E", if that is your question.

Which version of the software are you using, or if another vendor's product, which one? Also, in case the discussion leads to state-related reporting issues, are you in AL or OR?

**muttering many bad words** this afternoon. If ever there has been a place for tax simplification or raising the thresholds for needing the bleeping form, it is the 1116. All from a seemingly simple little folder of a handful of documents with large numbers and everything but the kitchen sink on the broker statement. Tomorrow it will be a different form that I shall rant about. It was the 1116's turn today. That is all. /

Hi Carla, I'm sorry you are in this situation, but no one here will answer your questions. This is a private forum for tax professionals that use mostly one brand of software. That being said, we also can not provide you with anything more than what you have already found out, that too much time had elapsed and you were beyond the statute of limitations for filing the amended returns to correct mistakes made by HRB. I am curious to find out though, if if this was truly caused by HRB's errors, why didn't HRB prepare amended returns for you to fix their mistakes? As far as where the rest of your money is, like any creditor, the IRS does charge interest and penalties, so it is entirely possible that some of your refund was applied to those charges before any remaining amount of the refund was used to offset the student loan. I'd suggest that you talk with a local tax professional to see if someone can help you straighten some of this out for you, possibly work out a reduced settlement, or at least give you a better understanding of what is happening.

No problem, glad I could steer you in the proper direction.

IRC sec 71(b)(1)(B), and you could also look at Title 26 CRF 1.71-1T having Q&A and specifically look at #8, or if you need it in plain language, try topic 452 or Pub 504, pg 16 where each of those include the exact language that I stated. I'd like to see your cites now in support of your position.

This is also not correct. One of the requirements for payments to be alimony is that the divorce degree or separation agreement "doesn't designate payments as NOT alimony."

Here are some rules taken from pub 547 Even though this was the result of one event, each of the components is figured separately, and it looks like a loss on the contents. If one event results in multiple items destroyed or stolen, the $100 rule is subtracted only once. If there are multiple unrelated casualties during the year, the $100 rule is applied to each event. If the event results in items of gain and loss, there's this tidbit regarding the 10% rule - In your case, I think you will still either be deferring the gain on the residence or excluding it under sec 121. You should research this further unless someone else can answer, but it seems to me that a gain excluded under 121 would be treated the same as one that is postponed. In other words, you would ignore the casualty gain on the residence in applying the 10% rule so that it applies only to the loss on the contents. I'd suggest that you look at pub 547 here. Its contents are indexed and clickable that will take you to the exact spots that apply. Look for these sections: figuring the loss gain from reimbursement separate computations then further down in the contents - look at the sections for the "$100 rule" and the "10% rule"

Ah, there's nothing like a little victim blaming and shaming to round out the day. Yeah, this would work well, eh?

*taps foot* waiting for Tom to post in another "star topic". Maybe best to wait for another week for a better opportunity. On second thought, I may have to devise a special award for Tom for being instrumental in suggesting this presitgious award. Or was it Yardley?

Well, I'm not a programmer but I'll take a wild guess that it is flowing there because it is an item listed on the depreciation schedule, however that doesn't make it the correct reporting. All of the programs I've used over the years allow some flexibility by providing the preparer with check boxes to stop some items on the depreciation schedule from flowing to the wrong form, line, or section of a form, and will be labeled something like "do not include on 4797" or "not sec 1245 property", etc. If the loan was paid off in a transaction that was not part of the sale, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and all should agree that the proper reporting would be to deduct the remaining unamortized balance on Sch E in the year of payoff. This is no different except that the loan's payoff affected the final net cash due to/from the seller because it was included in the sale's settlement transaction. As I said before, it's an item that the law specifically says is NOT basis, nor is it an improvement or an expense of sale, so I see no justification for reporting it on the 4797. And as John said, in some cases, it may make a difference on some returns.

I agree with you. Because both parents are deceased, based on the instructions for line 29 and the chart for "single" filing status, it appears that this child should be allowed the full AMT exemption that should bring the AMTI to zero on this specific return. Is the program calculating the AMT because it is limiting the exemption because of her age? Do you have a checkbox or any way to auto-generate a statement that the exemption should not be limited. If not, I'd be attaching an explanation to send with the return and would be readily available if/when the IRS tries to assess the additional tax.

Remember that negative reactions don't help a member advance in his or her quest to earn a star, lol so the angry or sad faces don't count. If you want to vote for that person's post in a positive way, I'd suggest a heart and then express your anger or dismay by posting a supportive response.

Yes, I have an idea. It's because the decrease in FMV is used to determine the loss if that decrease is less than adjusted basis.

I agree with Abby that the proper reporting is as he described. Points aren't part of basis, so I'd say that they don't belong on the 4797. The amortization of points is an expense that is deducted ratably over time, again not part of basis. The law says that remaining unamortized points are to be deducted when the related loan terminates by events such as payoff, refi, foreclosure.

EFTPS allows various OIC payments including one for subsequent periodic payments. It isn't exactly automated, but depending on how many payments were agreed to, that would be an option where the TP could schedule the payments.

You have a $50K gain. Insurance proceeds of $170K minus adjusted basis of $120K. If this is the personal residence, the gain can potentially be excluded using those rules if the taxpayers meet those requirements, and then there's no need to discuss gain deferral. If for some reason they can't exclude the gain under the personal residence rules, the gain may qualify for deferral under the involuntary conversion rules if the replacement is within the time allowed because the cost of the replacement property will exceed the insurance proceeds. Deferred gains reduce basis, because ultimately when that home is sold, the lower basis will result in that final gain being higher by the amount that is being deferred now.

Who needs light? I didn't have any lights on except that one over the single monitor. It was the middle of the afternoon and the office was plenty bright enough. I used the tablet instead of the camera. What can I say besides I'm too cheap about some things and don't care enough about other things to walk 5 feet to get the camera.