jklcpa

Thank you, Rich. That does make sense to me and does follow the law.

I had to look further to find that this imputing of rental income is a tax loophole that people take advantage of with owner-occupied properties so that they can report on Sch E and take the other deductions. In my brief search I found some articles about it but didn't continue digging to find any authority on it, but it must be there or at least not specifically denied, but it seems like a sham to me. I would like to know though if the IRS actually does this in audits. I would expect more often for the IRS to disallow the deductions entirely based on the personal use issue rather than this imputing. Now this really has me wondering....

^ exactly. Any day that the dwelling unit is used by a related party or is rented to for less than fair rental value are both considered a day of personal use. Exception to that is if the family member uses it as his/her main residence AND rents it for fair value, but if that family member is paying below market rent, then it is entirely personal use. Maybe my 1st post was too vague, but this issue is clearly covered in pub 527. I've also never heard of the IRS imputing rental income.

Not sure you will get an answer as this person last visited our site here in mid-January.

Yes, I saw that too, some bird that was being fed in tiny morsels. There was also the remains of some fur-covered small animal that looks like a rabbit in there and over to the left edge something that was attracting a few flies. A buffet with choices.

Thank you! Silly me, I checked the A and 8283 instructions, and TTB, and hadn't gotten to the pubs yet. Clients driving me crazy today.

I found the answer that furniture is dissimilar from clothing from kitchen & dishwares, etc. Now I'll break down those contribs into their components so it should be obvious that no one group exceeds the threshold even though the total does. I think that will work. Does anyone see a problem with this?

Reviving this with a question. Client is retiring and downsizing to a much smaller house and said she is having to cut most of her personal belonging by about half before the move. She started in 2016 and gave away a lot, all to Goodwill, says the total just squeaked over $5K. With multiple dates of contribution, because it is all to one organization, does she really need an appraisal and to complete Sec B of the 8283? In the instructions it says to group similar items, so is clothing dissimilar enough to large pieces of furniture or other household goods, or is all that personal property considered similar enough that it must be grouped together? Sorry if this is simple, but I've never had anyone try to claim this much and haven't had to ever deal with an appraisal, and don't want to now. She asked for clarification for 2017 as well since her date of move is probably early summer. I think her values are too high, told her to reevaluate the value of those items given, and will be sending her either the goodwill suggested value guide or the one from TTB. So, can I still use only Sec A if I have multiple dates of contribution with some being clothing, some being furniture, etc.?

One of my individual return clients is relocating to Savannah and will be looking for a local preparer after her move. Anyone here?

It is awesome to see them in person. I had that experience some years ago at Prime Hook Wildlife Refuge. We were fishing its canals and had an eagle fly straight down the canal toward us, swoop down and pluck a carp out of the water. He was close enough and being wet, he didn't get much altitude as he then flew directly over us. It was a surreal moment like right out of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom show. It sounds corny, but I still remember seeing the eagle with that carp in its talons and the carp's scales glistening in the sun.

I agree with Tom and the others that this can't be considered temporary. Pub 463 differentiates between "temporary" and "indefinite", and if indefinite then that area becomes the tax home. If you need a reference, MTG shows the IRC that covers this is sec 162(a) and also has Rev Ruling 93-86 for "indefinite" and RR 99-7 for "temporary. If you have a MTG, look in the index for "temporary vs indefinite test".

Yes, 280A(d)(2)(C) and 280A(d)(3). Safe link to Cornell Law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/280A Another reference is Jackson, T.C. Memo 1999-226 where taxpayer was found to have rented to parents for less than he reported on his return, and rented it for less than fair value. Court reduced the rental income to the actual lesser amount, moved the mtg int and r.e. taxes to Sch A and disallowed the other expenses. Rental income is still reportable and any expenses related to the period of personal use are disallowed other than the mortgage interest and real estate taxes that would go to Sch A.

The way this is worded, I think that the disability awarded is based on the time period going back to Sept 2014 but all was received in 2016. I don't have a lot of time to research this, but it depends on if it is paid under statute or not. For example, back pay that is awarded under National Labor Board is reported in the year that it should have been paid as described here at 4.2.2.8, and I think there was some post on our forum here last year, possibly having to do with a CA union employee, if memory serves it was a firefighter. (Edit: it was a police officer. Link to that topic). Other than that special rule, the back pay is generally reported in the year it is paid, so for David's client I think this is all reportable in 2016. David, please see this pub 957, second paragraph under #1.

My policy is that I must be the one to initiate contact. For what you received this morning, I would telephone my bank using a known and valid phone number from either my bank statement or back of my credit card. It's pretty much the same policy for the telephone fundraising calls and for sales and marketing calls too. If the initial contact is made by someone else telling me that I should do something, it's not happening.

I received the email below from my state society of CPAs. It's probably only a matter of time before the scammers try this same tactic with other professional organizations as well. PHISHING ALERT FROM IRS We have been informed that there is a new email phishing scam that appears to be sending an email from a state CPA organization. The email contains a PDF attachment that claims to be a “Secured File.” The attachment contains a hyperlink to view the file that the recipient is directed to open. The link directs the recipient to a phishing site that asks for the recipient's email address and password. Please be advised that the DSCPA NEVER requests your password. If you are ever concerned about an email that you receive from us, please contact us immediately. You can email . We hope that you are not affected by this phishing scam, but if you do receive this phishing email, do not open it and let us know immediately. Thank you.

I haven't seen anything about it and checked the Delaware Code. Nada, the Delaware Code shows no revisions that I've seen. Title 30, Ch 11, sec 1109 still basically says DE allows itemizing when using the standard for Federal, and that DE itemizing piggybacks the Federal to start with and talks about the modifications we already know about that are printed on the Form 200. Since it is still illegal under Federal law, and with DE starting with the Federal and making the few modifications allowed, I'd say most likely the answer is "no".

I think it depends on the child's birthday and when she reached the age of majority and became emancipated under state law to figure out if the child was "custodial" for at least 6 months of the year. Take a look at pub 501, page 14 "emancipated child" and the examples #5 and 6 on the next page. Reg. 1.152-4(d)(1) defines child as custodial of neither parent if child is emancipated under state law.

A client had him call because she could not grasp the concept about her FHA mortgage insurance up-front fee on the 1098 being added to her loan, and I wasn't able to make sense of what she was even talking about the way she was relaying what he told her. I guess it took both of us before she understood how that works. I really needed that whole time wasting call today.

The most annoying yet amusing convo of the week so far was talking to a mortgage broker, not a client. blah, blah, blah convo... and then this: Broker: ... I prepare my own return and take lots of deductions (yeah, I bet!) and am actually going through an audit right now, and it's not too bad. The agents are really great. Me, rolling my eyes at all of that and thinking again "yeah, I bet": Oh, that's good to hear. Broker: Yes, the agent said if I wasn't an @$$hole to them, they wouldn't be to me. They told me that I didn't need to hire a tax person to represent me because it would just cost me a lot more in fees, so I'm doing an offer in compromise myself that some professional would probably charge me thousands of dollars to prepare two sheets of paper. Me: Well alright then, that's great. I'm really glad to hear you are having a good experience with your audit. Good luck to you with that! Guy was a total ass and doesn't have a clue that he's being audited because of "lots of deductions".

What???? Don't sell yourself or your talents short, Jack. We all bring something of value to the party, and that and each of our willingness to help fellow members is a big part of what I love about the group.

Here's a selfie. I need a shower and a haircut for sure. Haha, I crack myself up...or I'm cracking up....

I feel like I'm a little behind on the personals because of having to meet the earlier deadline for some of the business entities, new returns, some complications with existing ones. I really don't keep track. More of the personals came in earlier this year, possibly because they actually did receive the documents earlier from brokers and other payers. Other than maybe a handful, just about every return has some issue. Nothing is going smoothly this year, but the clients don't know that. They are all happy, and that is a good thing. I am very, very tired and am working in slo-mo. I could audition for one of those zombies on The Walking Dead.

Son is 28 years old....

I don't think the mom can be a dependent. She isn't considered a U.S. national, she isn't living here. See sec 152(b )(3)(A)