jklcpa

Zips. Yes, I used them in the transition between 3.5" and CDs because they held a lot more, but they were expensive. Was that during the time when CDs first became writable or able to rewrite them. I threw a bunch of those zips away a few years ago. I think the last XP machine I had, I added that drive on it so to read those zips.

Check out the bold instruction for line 6 on page 10 of this MD instruction booklet. It actually addresses the military personnel and says to use the MD address on file with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. http://forms.marylandtaxes.com/current_forms/Resident_booklet.pdf

I agree with Lynn on how to enter. It appears that the previous person may have entered the land as salvage value so that the reduce basis is what is depreciated. The structure's depreciation will calculate correctly, but the problem with the way it was entered previously is that it would double up on the basis assigned to the land at disposition. Looks like they didn't know how to enter it properly. Was this self-prepared?

My 89-pager new client that I met with on Tues & sent LY's return yesterday afternoon just emailed me asking when they'd be hearing about their tax fate. Grrrrrrrr!

One of my computer classes was to learn COBOL, to write a simple program for a task and run it. If it wouldn't run, we had to debug it too until it worked. This was before PCs were everywhere and so we had to reserve time to use one of my school's few terminals and had to log in remotely to time that the school purchased on Stanford U's system.

Yes, I took one on that the guy told me on the phone was easy. It's the one I posted about in my rant topic. I finally got LY's return (electronically, thank goodness!) prepared by another local CPA firm and it was 89 pages, and none of it was extraneous fluff either like the home ver of TT would print.

Check out what I still had in the closet: a storage box for 5.25" floppies with disks inside. AICPA's ATB program from 1990-91 and DOS 6.2 Plus the enhanced tools. Chessmaster too. lol That disk is high density, mind you, and holds a whopping 1.2 MB each. I could scrounge up some old blank cassette tapes too if anyone needs some.

Not simple and the reason I didn't answer right away besides drowning in returns of my own. I opened the book and ticked off the requirements. I hope I am on the right track for you. Give it a little while and someone else will say I'm wrong...probably. It's been that kind of a day, week, and year.

Pacun, marrriage and birth were both in 2016. It does not matter which came first for tax purposes. It's not that I don't want to give all available deductions, exemptions, and credits, it's that what matters is using the information we know and gather through due diligence to apply the law as prescribed by the tax code to arrive at the proper result. Just because you choose to ignore that the facts presented indicate that the daughter is the dependent of her parents and that this young father's return "would prevail" does not make it correct to file it that way knowing all that we know. From Terry's facts, should you choose to believe them and in applying the tax law, look at the seven tests to be a qualifying child as it relates to the daughter: Ineligible if a dependent of someone else - I'll assume parents aren't anyone's dependents, so moving on... Joint return test - hinges on whether daughter is a dependent of parents. A couple (the youngsters) can file MFJ but only if they can't be anyone's dependent. There is an exception that says it's ok for someone else to claim an exemption for one of the parties on that MFJ return IF that joint return was filed only to get their refund back AND if using MFS would have resulted in no tax. Terry said there would be tax, so daughter fails this test, can't file MFJ IF she is parent's QC. Citizen - we'll assume this test is met Relationship - meets this test Member of household > 1/2 year - Terry says daughter lived w/ parents all year Age - Terry says 20 years old & and student in 2016 Support test - If daughter didn't provide over 1/2 her own support for the year, then this test is also met. Looking at these facts, if they are all true, it seems to me that the daughter is a qualifying child of her parents. Sorry for the long post, Terry. IF what I posted of the facts are true, I don't think you even need to get to any tiebreaker rules.

So what you said 2 posts back ( ^ this part in bold) is not correct then. This young couple can NOT file MFJ. They must file MFS, and the daughter and grandchild are both considered to be "qualifying child(ren)" of the daughter's parents. The young stud military guy will file MFS and will claim himself since he made too much to be a qualifying relative of his parents, that is unless he was also a student for at least 5 months last year and could somehow be a qualifying child of his parents too, but you didn't give that info for anyone here to know for sure.

You said the daughter was only 20 yrs old and was a student last year, so she can earn more than the std ded and still be a dependent of her parents. Has that information also changed?

Agree with michaelmars. Using your address and forwarding the IRS check on to him won't be a problem. The ethical violation would be if you negotiate that IRS check. Do NOT do that, do NOT touch the client's money.

First, in general, if a couple files MFJ then they can't be anyone's dependent BUT there is an exception that says it's ok for someone else to claim an exemption for one of the parties on that MFJ return IF that joint return was filed only to get their refund back AND if using MFS would have resulted in no tax. Along with ^ that, if either of the parties on a MFJ return is claimed as a dependent by someone else (in your case, possibly the daughter being claimed by her parents), then no dependents may be claimed on that MFJ return. In other words, if this young couple files a return using MFJ, then they are not allowed to claim the infant as a dependent. Does that help? Again, in general because I'm not saying for certain that your client should, but yes, it is possible to file a MFJ return and for one or both of the parties to not claim themselves. If you look at a 1040 form for line 6a it says "if someone else can claim you as a dependent, do not check the box"

ARRRRRGH! My client that is moving to Georgia just received corrected 1099-INT and 1099-B figures from her brokerage account with different figures for bond prem amortization and sizable bases corrections (reduced) of funds sold for covered lots. She settles on the sale of her house here in DE on 4/17 and will be leaving the state the following day. *@$k^(#!&<% and many other bad words. Next rant, I met with a very nice new referred client yesterday with a return he said was easy. He didn't bring last year's return, wife brought the rest of their package today. No return, said that's all they got from last year's preparer...a respected CPA firm over the state line in PA. She's going to ask former preparer for a copy of LY's return. hahaha! All she had were unpaid vouchers for 2017 estimates and the 2-year comparison. I wonder if they mailed the client copy to the IRS?! This return has everything except the kitchen sink...easy my ass. High income multi-state earnings, investment accounts, NII tax, medicare add-on, employee stock options sold, AMT, 2 home offices in their McMansion and supposedly not using the safe harbor so I don't have a starting point for depreciation. Two kids' dep care and education credit info for oldest child all that will phase out. Problems with one page of the University printouts showing one summary total of payments in 2016 but another with the payments dated 1/717 for the fall 2016 tuition! So glad we had to have that extensive discussion for things that are of no benefit and looked problematic. And of course, part of their reason for leaving former CPA was they charged too much... when their work also included handling a collection issue of PA local earned income tax for several years because former-former CA preparer used in the year of move into PA knew nothing about the PA local taxes so those were never filed and paid. More bad words....and back to work!

Disclaimer: I didn't research this and haven't had any clients deal with this on either side, but I'd say that it is alimony that your client received. The purge is imposed because the court felt that this person had the resources to pay his obligation and didn't meet that payment on time, and that failure caused him to be held in contempt. I could be wrong, but I think that the funds your client received was the back alimony that was due her, and it took court action and collection by the court in order for her to get it. Thinking about it from another angle, there is no other type of payment that she would be due, like any sort of punitive damages related to the nonpayment, so I'd say that it is the back alimony that was owed to her. What did you decide?

You would enter the items of income from those prior year returns that would include the ex's share. In the end, what is happening on the worksheet is that it is calculating the hypothetical tax under a scenario as if your client received it during each of those prior years using the rules, rates, and filing status in effect and based on everything included on those actual returns that were filed...and then toward the bottom on lines 18-20 it compares the calculated results in the worksheet's "what-if" scenario to what was actually reported. The end result should be what is attributable solely to your client and the addition of the new lump sum payout had he or she had the SSA benes paid during those years. Does that make sense?

I looked up those codes and found this in the knowledgebase for TaxWise, also a CCH company. Check out the description for that #196 code. Are you using a wireless connection to the internet? http://cchsfs-taxwise.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15787/~/e-file-rejection%3A-ind-195---ipaddress-in-atsubmissioncreationgrp-in

I love you all. Thanks for the laughs. Yes, we are in this together.

Save me from these long and exasperating telephone calls with older clients that want to chat and can't grasp concept of the simplest of questions. Email with several clients isn't going much better. After a total of 7, yes 7, emails back and forth, I hope this one person knows that I now need the ONE 1099R for her ONE ira distribution. I kid you not! Seven!!!!!!! And then she asked where the distribution was from again! I know she had bad health issues last year...maybe she's on some medications that are affecting her brain! We should probably save my clients from me too. Yesterday was a wrap on another client that was making me crazy with numerous chatty emails back and forth, and then tried to fax me the e-file signature forms and had them in her machine backwards so that I got blank pages... I got the Fed fine and THREE TIMES she sent blank pages for the state form. THREE TIMES! Yes, I'm shouting now. I had to take an allergy pill this morning and that isn't helping either. An intervention may be needed later on today. One guy that I've told repeatedly how many different ways he can get his info to me then thought it would be ok if he just dropped by sometime today when I'm booked full with appts. This was after I told him my availability back two weeks ago and he never bothered to contact me again until yesterday. He's one that thinks he can tell me how this process is going to flow... I have other ideas about that, and no one is going to dictate to me how I choose to run my business. No one. I can't wait for this to be over. /rant

Lynn and Deb are correct. Individuals are cash basis and this lump sum, although attributable to earlier years, was all received in 2016 and that is the tax year to report it. It would be incorrect to amend and report any of it in 2015. I can see the problem with that little other income and most coming from the social security. With whatever is taxable of the SS, the income is probably reduced to zero by the standard deduction and exemptions, but the 8962 is based on household income that includes the nontaxable SS. Jack, if what I'm seeing in my brief calcs is on track, they should be eligible for some subsidy, just not to the extent of govt's help that they accepted, right? And with no earned income and already on SS, they have no options to impact that household income figure at all or the resources to do it even if they wanted to. That lump from 2015 bumped their FPL % above 200% so the added insult here is that on top of someone who has waited to receive that lump sum, and might have had a real fight to get it, its receipt increases the cap on repayment from the $600 up to $1,500. What a shame.

Ha, no. I had to go back and look at one of the few I did like this to see the interplay between the worksheets and the flow of it all, and then I scribbled some stuff on scraps of paper. I struggle with it like everyone else and am very fortunate with my client base that I hardly ever have to deal with these sort of ACA issues.

Does the bottom of the affordability worksheet have figures filled in? With my rough calcs, I think it should probably be filling in $2,064 in each month's box for this person, and that represents the annualized bronze-level premiums, and because that amount exceeds the % of household income, it is considered unaffordable. Did you fill out the appropriate entries in ATX to also generate the Marketplace Coverage Affordability Worksheet? That is where the annualized premium should flow from? It seems like you've missed some input...maybe because I don't think that bottom part should be zero. That is why the program is showing the penalty, because it thinks this person can afford a premium of zero. I'll be moving this topic over to the ACA subforum in a little while, after I know you've seen this.

It must be an ATX issue. I've received acks back this morning that came back within a minute or two.

This may have a positive cash flow, but once depreciation deduction adds in to the expenses, the ones I've seen would have ended up with a tax loss if left on Sch E.

SFA, I agree with Rich about the interrogating. IF you still want one or either as clients, you must go back at them with more questions and absolutely must insist on documentation that you are required to keep on file as proof that you completed your due diligence. You don't have to say anything about knowing about the other trying to claim the kid, just talk about the IRS requirements and the crackdown on fraud in these areas and potential penalties that could be imposed on you, and that professional ethics requires you to delve deeper. Blame it on the software if you have to, such as it is giving red warnings about unanswered questions and won't allow you to release or file any return without having this information entered.