jklcpa

Those homeschooling the kids need to submit reports and the kids are tested periodically, and your clients should have some sort of records for this. Kids born at home still get an official birth certificate recorded with the state. Also, regarding those born at home, ask if the services of a midwife were used where paperwork may be available.

From a Drake knowledgebase: Above taken from this page: http://kb.drakesoftware.com/Site/Browse/14304/Drake-Tax-Security-Information?Keywords=password

SSA is processing faster this year. I filed my own W2 last week and it's already complete whereas in prior years it was into Feb before I saw approval. Now I'm off to check on others I've filed. (ETA - W2s filed yesterday are already complete!) I can't comment yet on the 1099s. I've been using the FIRE system to file those directly with the IRS but the one's so far completed this year, I've done those through an online service that included mailing recipient copies. I have received an email acknowledging completion and acceptance though, and that only took a few days from start to ack.

Some of the IRS pages covering this were last updated on 1/10. I think we are going to have to wait for more official announcements and certainly will need program updates IF there will be some allowance made to not include the penalty on affected returns for 2016. At this point wouldn't our software generate an error message that would need recitfying before e-filing would be allowed? Sorry for all the posts. I'm on my tablet at the moment and making it harder to include all in one post.

For those that don't link clicking the links: The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 20, 2017 Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - MINIMIZING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PENDING REPEAL By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the "Act"). In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market. Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications. Sec. 3. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Act, shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs. Sec. 4. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the head of each department or agency with responsibilities relating to healthcare or health insurance shall encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers. Sec. 5. To the extent that carrying out the directives in this order would require revision of regulations issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the heads of agencies shall comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable statutes in considering or promulgating such regulatory revisions. Sec. 6. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE, January 20, 2017

Below is a safe link to the White House official site of the actual executive order signed. Sec 2 is the part that pertains to the individual mandate and its penalty. It urges the regulatory agencies in charge of enforcing it to "waive, defer, delay" with the power at their means within the current law. I think this is a step in that direction, but my understanding at this point is that this officially butts up against the actual ACA laws, and ultimately will need the repeal/replace that is planned before this can be truly legally implemented, but that appears to be covered in Sec 5 that urge agencies to follow this order. Now the question is whether IRS will choose to not pursue the collection of the penalty and at this moment we don't have an answer to that, not at least one that I've seen. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/2/executive-order-minimizing-economic-burden-patient-protection-and

Agree with what michaelmars said above. As for 7 amortization schedules, take the advice Roberts gave and use one spreadsheet with allocation formulas.

After today, I'll need all of that and more....

I've never offered it as my clients wouldn't go for an add-on such as that.

It's scheduled to open on the 1/23/17 for individual returns. The status page says the date for filing business tax returns opens on 1/6/17. https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/e-file-providers-partners/modernized-e-file-mef-status-page

You never do, Eric, and this April will mark the forum's 10-year anniversary. Other than posting thank you messages here, it's the one other way of showing our appreciation for putting up with us.

Add to that list that we are also safeguarding all the world's identities from data thieves with a myriad of log-ins and passwords all while the government systems are the ones being hacked. I need chocolate already!

This is a great reminder of the work Eric does for us behind the scenes, so I am donating toward his efforts and the new hardware. Thank you, Eric. The donation link is at the top of the forum or by clicking here.

This topic from a couple of weeks ago should help. It's about templates in ATX:

We aren't going to discuss states' voting requirements.

Beneficiaries do use carryover basis for securities distributed in-kind if no election is made to recognize gain at the trust or estate level. It sounds like there would be no benefit to making that election in the case Margaret describes because the trust has had gains thus far. The election allows recognition of gain at the trust/estate level at the time of distribution, and it must be applied to all in-kind distributions during the tax year and not be applied on an asset-by-asset basis. If this election is made, then the beneficiary would then use a stepped up basis when the security is ultimately disposed of. This strategy may be beneficial when the trust has unused capital losses that could absorb the gain, but Margaret's client doesn't have this scenario, so this would likely not be advantageous. It's also has no benefit if the beneficiary will incur more tax than the trust, if the beneficiary will hold the security for a long time and thereby deferring gain for that extended period, or if planning to hold it until death at which time it would receive the stepped up basis.

Roger, none of our general membership are former employees of CCH or ATX. No doubt you will be able to figure it out on your own....

I moved your post to general chat and out of the "help" forum. "Help" is used for this forum's help, and most all of the questions other than health care are posted in the general chat section. Sorry, I don't have specific advice on your problem, but I'm sure that someone here will have some useful advice for you.

If the notice was dated 10/4/16, wouldn't the 90th day be 1/2/17 and you are already beyond the deadline?

You should take a look at sec 267 for that. A simple google search should bring up a lot of information. I usually gravitate to those from IRS, Cornell.edu, CCH first that I know are safe and reputable.

David and Margaret, here is an article from The Tax Advisor that has some information including some code and reg references, including a reference to the reg that states that the only person entitled to the sec 1244 treatment is the one who held the stock from the very beginning. In reg. sec. 1.1244(a)-1(b) , see item 2 even though it is in the section for partnerships, the last portion of that reg says: Finally, here's a link to The Tax Advisor article: http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2009/mar/claimingordinarylossesforsec1244stock.html Margaret, try some research on that code and transfers of stock as property settlements incident to divorce. I don't have any firsthand experience to say whether there is any exception to the reg I posted or not. ETA - Margaret, you're probably out of luck with your client's situation. I read this also, but don't have a reference at the moment: "Generally, all transfers of §1244 stock by the shareholder, whether in a taxable or nontaxable transaction, whether by death, gift, sale or exchange, terminate §1244 status."

Also re: sec 1244: Is your client the original owner of the stock? Code sec for 1244 doesn't say it, but it's in the regs that one must be the original owner of the stock in order to qualify. Second, make sure the company's receipts from other than the passive activities doesn't knock it out of the 1244 status, assuming it really does qualify.

Since your email address contains your actual name, I was able to find that you are already listed as a tax preparer, and since any preparer preparing more than 11 returns is generally required to e-file those returns, I am curious about how you've been handling this so far. What reason are you giving to your clients for paper filing those returns?

I started thinking about resolving to eat healthier, exercise more, gain more fitness, lose weight... ... and then I smelled the cookies my husband baked, fresh out of the oven. Let's just say I didn't turn them down. Le sigh ~

IRS has a 10-year look back for felony convictions in their suitability check. If answering "yes" that you had a felony conviction within the last 10 years, you must provide details in the application. There are 3 questions in the section on suitability that must be answered that the IRS uses in deciding to accept or deny the application. If the firm, principal, or responsible party fails the suitability, the IRS will notify the applicant of the failure and will include a date that the applicant may reapply. See pub 3112, page 9-10.