jklcpa

At least now the drug commercials give some clue as to what ailment the drug is used for. When those commercials first came on the scene, some of them were rather vague about the condition they were supposed to help. I think the one for Rogaine might have been like that Too long ago to remember now, but it was before the internet or easy access to finding that information.

Thanks for posting this.

Guess I should have also said that my CPE is spread throughout the year and that I'll fit in some tax courses between now and year end, but again, my next reporting year isn't until next June 30th.

I'm getting them too, and my reporting year end is June 30th. I purchase an unlimited webinar package most years so I'll do some tax-related courses between now and the end of 2016 before the next busy season gets rolling.

Older article, still pertinent, has code sec & reg references: http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2008/nov/depreciatepropertyinlikekindexchangesconsistently.html

Agree with Pacun that it is up to us to know and keep up with the laws of our given profession. The first inkling that a law change in professional requirements may be being discussed by the state board or state legislature usually comes from my state society website posting (used to be newsletter), by postings on the Dept of Revenue's website section for tax professionals, by trade publications, by participating in online forums such as this one, and by attending the ethics CPE for my state where regulatory changes are covered. With that being said, there is also a section on my individual permit to practice and also on my society memberships that I am in compliance with the CPE requirements. From the website linked below, it appears that the law change was effective in March of 2012, so you've had at least 2 biennial renewals since then to notice the change. According to the last section on the linked page, there are limited reasons the State will renew a licence when the applicant is not in compliance with CPE, but not knowing the law is not one of them. http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=09.38.02

http://dllr.state.md.us/license/taxprep/taxpreplic.shtml#reg http://dllr.state.md.us/license/taxprep/taxprepcpe.shtml The CEU are required to renew the tax preparer licensing in MD. Attesting to completion should have been part of the license renewal process. I deleted your other 5 duplicate posts. I'm not sure what the delay was in posting, but they appeared to all be the same.

IRS' MeF status page has the information.

I would also pass the $5 fee on to the client. My annoyance would come from being charged a fee for those fiscal year entities that legitimately have a due date in 2017 that are required to file on the 2015 forms based on the starting date of the fiscal year, and also those fiscal year entities that are on extension with an extended due date in 2017 that are technically not late. It does seem like nickel & diming to me also.

Eric, KC and I had many discussions over that year and a half period, and all three of us agreed to put a ban on politics for the good of the forum. The description of General Chat is clear and does indicate that the forum will not include politics, and most everyone has been understanding of this and sticks with accounting, tax, and software subjects as is our focus. For newer members that weren't here a couple of years ago and as a reminder to those that were here, remember that we did try a separate forum, tried asking posters to be respectful, tried reasoning, tried warning points, tried time outs as a cooling off period, and no one liked any of those solutions and they weren't working either. When the occasional political posts do occur, there isn't any way left to deal with this other than to hide or delete them and let the poster know, and that is how Eric suggested it be handled. I'm following his decision on that across the board with ALL political posts so that it isn't personal or at all biased against one side or the other, and so that there is no judgement call about whether something is so mild that it won't be offensive or not. Since I am the moderator that happens to be on here most of the time, I am the one that is either hiding those posts or editing those words out of a post by using a very light font so that the post is preserved with the offending part not visible to the membership. Again, what seems innocuous to start with can quickly escalate into something else. All it takes is for a followup post to include some reference to their candidate, party affiliation or platform, or something against the other side, and we'd be off and running. At this point in time, we aren't going back to hosting political discussions.

Sorry, while any post may seem innocuous to start out, you and I can't know how another member may view it or respond to it, or just how quickly a post can be taken off topic onto another tangent. We allowed politics for a long time because only a handful of people posted in that vein, but as the membership grew, and possibly as the country and our membership became more divided and outspoken, we started to have some animosity when opposing views were posted in reply. We tried a separate politics forum for about a year and a half and some of the members here could not handle it or maintain a respectful tone, and some of the ill will also was carried over into the main forum. It also caused some hard feelings that caused members to leave, at least one person was banned, and we still have some animosity that lingers on. Eric, KC and I had numerous discussions on the best way to handle it, and for the good of the forum it was decided to have no politics whatsoever. That includes cartoons and those supposed humorous posts.

I sent you a PM of explanation earlier at the time of deletion which can be found by clicking on the envelope in the upper right of your screen.

Knee deep in a shipload.

I am not sure of their exact classification, but the VA acts as the guarantor backing the loan, and state law governs whether or not a deficiency judgment can be obtained. I have heard that CA, a nonrecourse state, DID go after some with deficiency judgments. If this is Virginia, it is a state that allows for deficiency judgments and perhaps that is why the 1099C shows it as recourse, but I am just guessing at that. It might be that the bank evaluated the client's available assets and decided to not file for the deficiency judgment based on the relatively small amount of debt being discharged since the client's next move could have been to file for bankruptcy, and that is why she received the 1099-C. The COD income on a VA loan ordinarily would have been nontaxable under the Mortgage Foregiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 if it had been on the personal residence, but that option was lost once the home was converted to rental though. Pub 908 has good information on how to handle the adjustment for the tax attributes starting on about page 27. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p908.pdf Sorry, I can't help you with the ATX input as my last use of that software was for the 2011 tax year.

I also found the article below that may be helpful, written by an EA/CPA, also has direct references to the code. Your client can't use the exclusion under personal residence since the property was a rental at the time of foreclosure. I also believe that based on the facts and circumstances you described, that this rental would not be a trade or business, so I don't think that exclusion would apply either. What you might get from this though is the proper handling of the foreclosure as it relates to a rental property. Does your client have a gain? The deemed proceeds would be the FMV since you said that the FMV was less than the mortgage balance at the time of foreclosure. What was this taxpayer's adjusted basis in the property? http://www.fogelcpa.com/Documents/FogelRentalForeclCSEA.pdf

I'll start by saying that I could be totally wrong here, but something sticks in the back of my mind about this COD income related to a rental and I couldn't find specifically what I was looking for. I did find the the article I've linked to below though. There are differences in handling depending on whether the debt is recourse or nonrecourse, so you should consider that. If you look at the section "Foreclosures Involving Recourse Debt" it talks about inclusion of the deemed gain and also the application of Rev Ruling 92-92 that would classify it as being attributable to the passive activity. In that instance, it might be that this income would be considered investment income because it is tied to the rental. Sorry, I don't know for sure if this is helpful or muddies the waters more, just putting it out here for your consideration. It's a CPA's blog post, but it does give references to the code and rev ruling in it that may be helpful: http://www.wipfli.com/BlogPost_Tax_prop_foreclosures_consequences_031511.aspx *IF* the above is true and must be included, I think the taxpayer would be knocked out of the EIC by the investment income under IRC 32(i) subitems (C)(D) & (E) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/32

David, try searching Form 8949 instructions for the word "nominee". There are only 2 matches, both leading to the same spot.

That would not be an authoritative source. From what I've seen on the IRS site it says "due date" not "original due date" even though the examples always use April 15th. Please read sec 6511(b)(2)(A) regarding this date question. When advising your client, please consider that by not filing, the SOL never starts.

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

Glad you made it home safely.

The fact that this was paid to the estate is irrelevant to determining how much of the distribution is taxable. The estate would use the same holding period requirement and ordering rules as the individual would have if paid out while the owner was still alive.

Mine have stopped also.

Yes! Your post brought back memories of an audit long ago where the client made his memo-area notations in Hebrew on all of his donation checks. That auditor asked for interpretation of a few he randomly selected and then accepted the entire batch.

That is all simply fantastic, Jack, and I'm glad you posted that because I remember you also making a comment about not caring about articles written by some unproven source, that is if I may be so bold as to *retread* something you said. That statement of yours was in reference to an article by an attorney that was an expert in the area being discussed and published in the AICPA's JoA, but never mind that now because the information below is what is pertinent to the current discussion. So,back to your post that references the penalties assessed under sec 6694, there is no need to make any interpretation about the "spirit of the law" here. If you've ever read that section, you should note that it ALL pertains to UNDERSTATEMENT of taxpayer's liability, and nowhere in it does it reference understatement of deductions. If you are unsure and would like to read it again or perhaps for the first time, here is a link to that section of the code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6694