jklcpa

Everyone, please stick to the above topic as that was the guise under which this topic was posted. Any further comments on the intent or reactions of Congress, complicity of then-IRS commissioner, IRS collapse, or anything else having a political bent to it, then this thread will be deleted.

Wishing everyone here the very best holiday and safe travels for those that will be doing so.

I have it too and didn't notice any difference in using it, and I like the fact that it is always up-to-date.

Forum Terms of Use & Rules

How does it see the street signs?!

If the delivery person has a wreck while on company time, that ultimately should be covered under the company's insurance. The employee would have to give his/her insurance card at the time of the wreck, but guaranteed that his/her personal insurer would be assigning that claim against the company's insurance. This is entirely different than putting the company car in personal name to get a cheaper rate that would be fraud. In a similar vein, my office has a separate policy that covers people on my property for business that my homeowner's policy does not cover. And...we are waaaaaaaay off-topic.

I'm sorry for the loss of your long time client and friend. I hope that the information you are able to pass along to the client's family about her motives and her statements like "sham marriage" will be of some help to them.

No problem with Firefox for me just now, and I renewed using it about a week ago. It was as Lynn said, with a click button for Tax Pros in the upper right of the home page of irs.gov. Clicking that, one of the click buttons on the next page that comes up includes one for the PTIN system saying that it is "online". Fwiw, I don't trust any links and renewed by directly typing in irs.gov and going thru the system from there.

No, the basis of the equipment is its transferred-in basis, as is its holding period, and depreciation is calculated on that. You only increase the value if the partner is going to recognize gain. Do you have that situation that requires gain recognition or do the assets have liabilities attached to them? Maybe this link spells that out more simply: http://sherayzenlaw.com/cash-and-property-contributions-to-partnerships-and-their-affect-on-a-partnership-interest/ What you will have is a disconnect between the depreciation basis of the asset (that is also the contributing partner's tax basis) and his capital account (that is the FMV of the asset contributed). The following article is excellent and has examples of the contribution by 2 partners and how that is recorded, and goes on to show the effect on basis and capital accounts of each partner when a contributed asset is later sold: https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2017/08/15/tax-geek-tuesday-applying-section-704c-to-contributions-of-property-to-a-partnership/#5f60cc3b44ca Is this the same Sch C to LLC conversion that you asked about back in late July in this topic? If so, reviewing that discussion again may also be helpful.

This year’s 1040 MeF Production shutdown/cutover and acknowledgment retrieval schedule: 1040 MeF Production Shutdown/Cutover Schedule Shutdown begins on Saturday, November 18, 2017, at 11:59 p.m. in order to prepare the system for the upcoming Tax Year 2017 Filing Season. Important Note: States who schedule retrieval of their state submissions may have to change their schedule in order to retrieve submissions in time to validate returns and submit acknowledgements by 11:30 p.m., November 18th. Anything not retrieved through MeF by 11:30 p.m., November 18th, cannot be accessed again until MeF reopens for 1040 MeF Production for Filing Season 2018. Shutdown Deadlines on Saturday, November 18, 2017 Transmitters: Transmitting Submissions (State & Federal) 10:00 p.m. Retrieving Acknowledgements 11:59 p.m. States: Transmitting Acknowledgements 11:30 p.m. MeF Assurance Testing System (ATS) Schedule ATS will remain open throughout this production shutdown/cutover period. Important Note: BMF returns are not impacted by this IMF Production Shutdown/Cutover schedule. The BMF Production Shutdown/Cutover schedule will be communicated in a QuickAlerts, outlining the exact timeframes, in early December and the times will be posted on the MeF Status Page. Please monitor the MeF Status Page for any updates. We apologize for any inconveniences and thank you for your cooperation. Please see new release IR-2017-183, issued Oct. 31, 2017 for disaster victims and paper returns information.

I think not. This is an older article from 2011 but its application would still apply in the context of your question and explains why international students here on "F" visas generally don't qualify for the education credits. The code section reference is sec 25A(g)(7).

From today's Quick Alert email:

I agree with cbslee that there isn't harm in filing and is the safe route if you are unsure. Your client did receive both a 1099 and a W-2, and this would put the IRS on notice in case both are still in the system, and that would lead to the trail of IRS requiring this company to reclassify your client as an employee.

Mine issue was with a bookkeeper not correcting a 1099-misc in the proper manner, and client and I weren't sure what had been filed with IRS. It wasn't meant to convert to a W-2, so my issue was different than yours. I thought my client might actually have three 1099s in the IRS system, but so far I'm not aware of any CP2000. We kept all the correspondence to and from the bkkpr as proof of what she did wrong, and she has since left the company. You could try calling but the company personnel might not talk with you, and with all of the scams and privacy concerns they probably shouldn't anyway. Plus, if the bookkeeper or person processing these forms doesn't know what they are doing, the person could also either turn the conversation confrontational or could end up asking for your direct free advice on the correct handling, and you don't want to be responsible for that instruction to a company that isn't your client.

I had a somewhat similar situation several years ago with a bookkeeper that made a mess in trying to fix a 1099-misc with her incorrect use of the "void" and "corrected" boxes. In writing to the client, I expressed my concern over whether the revisions were handled properly and described what the correct filing process with the IRS should have been, and asked that the client follow up with the bookkeeper. Of course, my client and I had already discussed all of this, and this letter to him was written to sound like a general inquiry from me that served as an easy way for him to ask the employer without sounding accusatory by him simply passing it along to the bookkeeper. Maybe something like that would work in your case too, and it would be a way to also mention other benefits that this company may offer to its employees that your client may have been eligible for such as pension and profit sharing, and expense reimbursement plans.

We're discussing it and I'm sure that Eric will come up with something that will work for us. The downvote is more than not liking something because it registers a negative vote against the person, so I don't think that's a good thing to use in this instance. A member that is being helpful by posting information that we find troublesome or problematic shouldn't be assigned negative points.

No, it would prove only the total mileage at that point in time and might be useful to show that he's driven a certain total miles, on average. Plus, how often are the oil changes, once or twice a year? You still have to fill in the gaps between them with the other required data.

True, he is taxed on profits whether distributed or not, but paying a distribution shows that the entity has the ability and willingness to pay the shareholder even though he may be rolling a substantial amount of resources/profits into new projects.

The idea probably came from your statements indicating that he retains title, that you were thinking of putting them in service, and that he has a contract to sell 12-18 months later. The more I hear and think about this, the more convinced I am that these towers should not be in a business and listed as in service by him. I'm still circling back to thinking of this as one gigantic construction transaction because of your statements about the revenue stream subsidizing his construction costs that sound a lot more like progress payments based on the a project's completion than anything else so that at a minimum he covers his cost and the large chunk of profit is realized at the end. Maybe the real question here should have been something like "in what period(s) is the sale recognized and reported?"

Right, Edsel's comment appears to be about the case law from the McGladry article written in 2015, and that's why I wasn't too uncomfortable posting it with the only caveat being the change in LTCG holding period that was used in the 1950's.

I'm right there with you on this! We're supposed to work for our clients, not act as gatekeepers for the IRS.

Hmm, these are interesting questions on these classifications, and I was waiting for more of these details. I don't have much in the way of definitive answers but some information that you may find helpful. The first determination that must be made before getting to questions of holding period and depreciable lives is to determine whether this is income in the ordinary course of business as a contractor. From the outset, he has a firm contract to build these towers that ultimately culminates in the sale, with some added revenue along the way. How will this other revenue be classified, as rental income or something else? Will he be reporting this separate from the contracting business? IF you decide that this is separate from the contracting business and call these trade or business assets to be depreciated: Regarding the depreciation lives, here is a letter ruling (safe link to IRS/pdf) that has a lengthy discussion with descriptions of the different types of towers and their various components, and it details out which asset classes and respective lives each of the types or components would fall into. It's only one letter ruling, but it should be useful as a starting point and should lead you to the proper classifications. It seems to me that you would not only have the construction cost dates to track, but the various components also. As to your question of how the holding period is determined for self-constructed assets used in a trade or business, so that I don't have to write it all out myself, this article from a CPA at McGladry specializing in real estate is excellent and should answer your question of when the holding period starts. The example is of a building but the concepts would be applied in the same manner if you decide that these towers are used in a business. Keep in mind that the Draper case that is cited was in 1954 when IRS used more than 6 mos out as long-term. As we all know, the holding period for long-term is now always one year as defined by sec 1222(3).

Yes, the sale of investment property is reported on Schedule D. If there is some considerable improvement within the last 12 months, that portion would be short-term, but generally speaking, most or all of the transaction is probably going to be long-term. I have some old case law that I could dig out on the issue of short-term reporting if that is needed. The expenditures for the rehab of the home are part of basis, and depending on the type of any other charges incurred that were associated with the property and how they were handled or ignored, some of those carrying charges might also be included in basis if an election was made to do so. You can read more about that here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.266-1

added something to this: depends upon our clients' ability to receive ACCURATE 1095s on a timely basis. How many of us had to wait for clients to get these forms corrected? Some here, I am sure. Luckily I had only one, and the process of getting this corrected form caused a lengthy delay in filing an otherwise very basic return. I was bothered when I found out that the national marketplace sub'ed out that job of investigating and calculating corrected amounts or other reported data, and then that information was transferred back to the marketplace to issue the corrected form. Now with the Equifax debacle and hacking, it all bothers me a lot more.

I agree, John. Much like many of us discussed here when this issue came up during the filing season, the law hadn't changed even though IRS said it wouldn't actively pursue. That was also compounded by the issue of whether the software would allow filing of "silent" returns without rejection, if I recall correctly. I think it's a good thing that IRS has come out with its position before the filing season starts.