jklcpa

Maybe he hasn't used the software since sometime in May? It doesn't update if it isn't run, right? Also, it seems too early for the organizer update. If I recall, ATX would make that available around Thanksgiving or early Dec

Right, there is no deduction because the bottom line is that someone else footed the bill for the medical expenses because they were part of the settlement. Here's the finding of the tax court in one instance where someone tried this: T.C. Memo 2012-43, Judith Gaerttner and Keith Williams

I'm hoping, with FDNY mentioning "contingent trustee" in the first post, that this client has most of her assets titled and protected in a trust.

Sorry you are having to deal with this family drama. Unload on us any time if it helps. That's never a waste of time and part of why we're here.

I didn't dig too far into the code, but I'd say no deduction based on this part of 213-1(a)(3)(i) where it says : "For medical expenses paid (including expenses paid for medicine and drugs) to be deductible, they must be for medical care of the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent of the taxpayer and not be compensated for by insurance or otherwise." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.213-1

Well, I think TTB must have been working on their site. Last night I got an error message about incompatible coding for the forum site and I couldn't access it at all with Firefox and a different but similar error on their sales page, then later caused MWB to warning me with a popup but still allowed their retail site to load. As of this evening, I am able to access both sites with no warnings at all.

Clickable links to previously pinned forum topics. Comments related to these posts should be made in the original linked posts.

I remember the official board being really ugly right before CCH shut it down in 2007, and not just related to the software. There were some truly awful people on there that were attacking other members on a very personal level with no repercussions.

Partial quotes from an article in Accounting Today: Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Susan DelBene of Washington also sent letters to Koskinen.

I don't think that quoting you and stating why Catherine's software (Drake) requires that information is picking on you. Since this is an ATX forum, I didn't want all the ATXers jumping in with ATX-related input advice to her.

Yes, Catherine, please add the info to the thread and I'll update the main post, and your post will bump it back into the current topics. I'll give people time for votes and feedback, and it looks like I'll move that one and the other pinned posts into one posting with links.

Drake requires it to e-file if filling out the detail. @Catherine , you may already know this: if you don't need the program to calculate the taxable portion, you can enter it on screen 3 instead, but then you have to make sure that it backs out properly on the states' returns and might require overrides that can cause problems. I prefer to enter it on the 1099G screen for these reasons.

All 3 pinned posts are stagnant but may still be occasionally useful to some. A few people complained that pinning posts took up space and didn't allow as many current posts to appear on their devices. Cast a vote and if there is something different, please also comment below.

I unpinned it because I didn't think anyone was using it. It doesn't contain the info for RI:

The 1120S K-1 doesn't have all of the same blocks as a partnership k-1 does. From the 1120S K-1 instructions, it should report weighted averages for all owners for the year, and be marked "final" at the top for the terminated owner. Please see the 1120S instructions starting on the pg 20 under "Special Rules - Termination of a shareholder's interest" and then pg 22 starting at "Item F" for how to calculate the percentage of ownership to report. Here's a link to the IRS for a pdf version of the instructions: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1120s.pdf

Gah, I usually end up with the wait staff comes back too soon or too often, like after barely one bite and asks if everything is ok.

I've never done a second original either, only amended returns. I'd be concerned about the states' handling of second originals, so given the choice, I'd prepare amended returns. In cases where the amount of tax is small, and if it doesn't affect other calculations or items that may affect future returns (like some sort of carryover or basis), I'd discuss with the client and give them the choice whether to amend or not.

Probably it's real. The IRS has used Equifax for i.d. verification since 2011 or 2012, and so does the SSA. That's in the topic about e-services and PTIN renewals being affected by freezing credit because it stops these agencies from continuing through the process of identity verification.

Thanks. I added an exclusion and am still getting the popup. Maybe it has to do with Firefox in the mix. I'm rarely on there so I'll just access it from my tablet for now.

Is anyone else getting a popup box that MWB is blocking a malicious site when accessing TTB forum or the company's main website even though it allows access to the sites? I was not getting this message as of last night and it started sometime overnight for me. Somewhere, way back in my memory, I remember having a conversation with the company rep when I reordered, and he said that some of the AV products definitely don't like their sites.

Yes, the client needs the written acknowledgement as well as the appraisal and signatures. I found this in pub 526 in the section for record documentation to keep:

I agree with your handling, John, and with Lee and Ron.

It's perfect weather here with beautiful days and crisp overnight temps. I love this time of year and am not looking forward to winter.

Rich, it was a 2-person partnership according to the title of the post. I believe the article recommends depositing the proceeds of the life insurance into the partnership and handling the payout to the estate or successor from there. Just some ramblings, but I was thinking that if this were a partnership of more than 2 persons, it would consider making a sec 754 adjustment that basically has the effect of adjusting inside basis of remaining partners to their outside basis, but in this case the partnership is liquidating the deceased partner's interest, and so it has a technical termination. Does this mean that the remaining person has additional basis because of the buyout? And is that in the form of additional basis in all the assets he now owes as a SMLLC or is it still goodwill? Sorry if that's not helpful, and I may be creating more questions than answers....

I'm following also and don't have a clear answer either, and that is why I didn't respond sooner. I did find this article from The Tax Advisor that might provide useful though and get the discussion moving. https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2015/aug/accounting-for-death-of-partner.html Also, this link to the Code that may be useful. After reading this, depending on how the buy-sell agreement is worded for the payout, it sounds like that $70K may well be goodwill. I'm not sure though and hoping others with more experience will weigh in. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.736-1