jklcpa

I just got an email offer at $1,299 to entice me to return to ATX. Yes, they really "care" about me. lol

As originally filed. Do NOT put the current NOL from 2015 on line 29a of these copies. Also, I would NOT include an 1139 with the 1120X. Instead, I include a worksheet to show the loss incurred and how it is applied to other years, either by carryback or carryforward, and show any unused remaining balance available to carry forward to future years.

Drop box = no chatting, interruptions, or meeting with me unscheduled. Plus, they can return e-file signature forms and payments in a secure location. Before that box was installed I was meeting with each client twice, or more. Some still request a drop off appointment, but now I meet with many only once when they pick up the finished product.

Tom, that is the recommended procedure that Lion posted from a CCH knowledgebase article.

Gee, could it be because we didn't have that information until later in the discussion?

Exactly this ^ . No worries about running out of work. Anyone who thinks otherwise, remember that no matter who is in power, what is promised, or even if we were to move to a flat tax, we would have to transition from what we have now to what would be. Think about just 2 areas of carryover and the transition rules that would be needed for capital loss carryovers and unused passive losses. Then we'd have the lobbyists and special interest groups clamouring for their deductions or credits to still be allowed, or for some special handling. Even if we went fully to a flat tax, with all of various legal entities we have, we'd still have volumes of rules to define what constitutes income, who it applies to, and at what rate of tax. Yes, our jobs are secure.

Crank, like you, I can't find anything that says they both can't take the deduction.

Rita, I don't think that is correct about the who makes the payment. I'd have to look for an official cite, but pub 970 has this: Interest paid by others. If you are the person legally obligated to make interest payments and someone else makes a payment of interest on your behalf, you are treated as receiving the payments from the other person and, in turn, paying the interest.

Sec 221(d)(1)(A) covers this part of your question. As long as the son was a dependent at the time the loan was taken out, the father could take the deduction as long as all the other rules are met, including that the son isn't claimed as a dependent now by someone else.

*Limited time offer https://www.cchsfs.com/cyber-week-offers/

You should really post this question separately in the general chat forum since many might not look at this section at all, or might not read the new posts because it's tagging along in a topic that was for the sale of a practice. I'm sorry about your loss, but am glad that you wanted to give us an overall update and to check in. Retirement with the critters in a lovely spot sounds very inviting right now!

^ what Jack said! Drop off solved multiple issues for me. No more missed or late appointments, the few that always show up much too early and interrupt other work, and especially the ones that think it's ok to bring multiple very young hyperactive children with them. Most of my clients really like the idea too because it is more convenient for them. My only regret is that I didn't do it many years sooner.

Thanks for the correction, Deb. I realized that the pdf is available from e-services. Right now the pdf printed from there is the completed application, and perhaps that is all IRS meant by "enhanced authentication" which is rather vague, I know. We'll have to each go with whatever our vendors require of us.

Right, and MeF is down for maintenance and e-services isn't up to speed yet, so we don't know why ATX isn't making this announcement when many of the other vendors have. Has your confidence in ATX's communication with its customers changed to a more favorable state since last year then?

It's in the works, we just don't know exactly when, or when we'll be able to get these pdf printouts because that must come from e-services, and that has a delay in bringing the enhancements up to speed for the new log in and identity authentication. Until that comes about and we reregister with e-services, we can't obtain the pdf printout for this new verification. What I've seen on the other vendor's sites is very similar to what Lion posted from the CCH site in the second post of this topic. The EFIN authentication by transmitters was mentioned as early as June on the IRS page linked below that highlighted changes coming as a result of the security summit and anticipated to be implemented for the 2017 filing season. The mention is under "Authentication Work Groups", a group that includes payroll and software vendors. EFIN verification is the second bullet point: "State and the IRS will receive new data elements from individual returns that will help improve authentication of the taxpayer and identify possible identity theft scams. These new data elements are in addition to the more than 20 elements identified last year. Partners also will share data elements from corporate tax returns to expand identity theft protections to businesses. Partners will enhance authentication efforts of tax return preparers and transmitters using Electronic Filing Identification Numbers (EFINs.)" https://www.irs.gov/uac/security-summit-partners-update-identity-theft-initiatives-for-2017

There is no cite at this point in time other than the IRS page I've linked to below, but I think the key word in this discussion is "verification" of the EFIN. Those of us that have efiled and have never changed software vendors already submitted the EFIN letter long ago to our software providers, but at some point soon and before the next season begins that will change, and in order to efile we will all have to log in to e-services, go through an identity verification, register a mobile phone and receive a text to it, etc. We will then be able to print out a pdf (must be a pdf from e-services) where the EFIN was assigned as part of the application process. All of the software vendors will be required to do this by the IRS. This is just one part of the security measures that were developed as a result of the security summit from this past summer that was held between the IRS, software vendors, and other key stakeholders. Another change will be required usernames and strong passwords to access the 2016 software, and with those passwords expiring and needing to be changed every 90 days. At this point the e-services/EFIN requirement was to be implemented by 10/24/16 and has been temporarily delayed according to this IRS page (safe link for those that worry): https://www.irs.gov/individuals/important-update-about-your-eservices-account Also, note that at this point it may be possible to proceed through this authentication process by telephone and waiting for something via U.S. mail that may take 5-10 days and additional steps to complete the process. This will be a requirement for all of us that do not already have the verified EFIN document as a pdf document from e-services on file with our software vendors. It does not count that the EFIN itself was already on file with the software vendor if that information was provided to them from the original letter sent to us from the IRS. It must come from e-services now because there were some fake EFIN letters submitted and relied on in the past. I have seen this on the Drake site, Drake's forum, in an email from Thomson Reuters for their CS fixed assets and tax products (Ultra Tax) as well as a warning right on their main page in large bold lettering, in a direct email I subscribe to from the IRS stakeholders' liason out of the Philly office, and now here.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

That would depend on why the relationship ended. If the only issue is payment and that can be rectified, then maybe I would. If there were troubles other than nonpayment, then probably not.

Clearly where you went wrong in instructing these people was using the orange highlighter instead of traditional yellow.

The 1139 is a request for a tentative (quick) refund and must be filed within one year instead of the longer 3 year period allowed for the 1120X, and with the 1139 the IRS is supposed to act on it within 90 days. The 1120X is a claim for refund (not tentative) and the tentative vs actual claim comes with differences related to the SOL. Rather than me explain it all out, I've included links to two articles that explain it better than any summary I'd give here. The articles are older and the carryback period allowed has changed, but the basic differences and effect of using one or the other of the forms hasn't. Article from The Tax Advisor (and also has a linked "exhibit" summarizing some of the differences in the last line of second section entitled "Background" : http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2010/mar/nolcarrybackclaimscanunlockclosedstatuteoflimitationyears.html Article from The Free Library online: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Practitioners+beware+-+use+of+Form+1045+or+1139+may+create+unexpected...-a018973034

The advice you've been given is for equitable distribution states, so you are safe to follow what's been said here. It would only have been different if the states were community property states.

Terry has it correct. In a noncommunity property state, the husband would retain his basis that relates to his half, and then he gets the stepped up basis at 1/2 of the total FMV, and depreciation starts over from the beginning on the inherited portion. I think the code sec you are looking for here is 1.1250-3(b)(2), but check that for sure. I'm on my tablet right now and is not as easy to look up to verify. As far as ATX, I don't know that there is any easy way to handle this. You'd have to reduce each of the existing components' cost, accumulated depreciation and NBV by half, and then add in the other half of each component that is inherited. For the components that still have depreciation deduction available to take, you will probably have to override the calculations because the depreciation should be a full year's amount prorated for the period before the death. It would be an incorrect calculation to use a sale date if there are any assets using a half-year method, but those using mid-month would be closer to accurate. Also, for the inherited portion, check me on this, but I think you can use the DOD as the starting date to calculate the expense. However, if sold within a 12-month period, the taxpayer would get long-term treatment, so that is something to watch out for with that date of death in the system as the "acquisition" date. I think I'd attach a note of explanation of how and why the cost and accumulated depreciation were reduced by half due to the spouse's death and how the year's depreciation was calculated.

Agree with Abby and Jack. File 2013 now and make the payment. File 2014 in Jan next year.

OK, with that I learned something new tonight. I had to look up why anyone would take this orally and found out it's a vasodilator used to treat high blood pressure. All these year I thought it was only a topical for thinning hair. I shouldn't be surprised because several of my dogs have been on sildenafil (Viagra) to treat pulmonary hypertension, as that was its original use. The vets tell me they are always pleasantly surprised when they don't get the all-too-common giggling when first prescribing it to new pet owner patients.