jklcpa

This topic posted by last year is the same discussion and has some links about the rules and how to report it.

It sounds like you've been thorough in analyzing why this is happening on this return. The only thing I can think of is that the SLCSP reported on the 8962 must be only for the mother and not the mother plus child. The 1095-A shouldn't have the child included in that figure since the coverage purchased didn't include the child, but that is the only thing that came to mind since the child is part of the "tax family" but isn't part of the "coverage family". About the warning and line 61, there were several threads posted about this earlier. ATX only gives a warning about line 61 box not being checked when the return is totally "silent" as to the ACA, so as soon as the return includes either the form 8962 or 8965, that warning will disappear. I'm not going into the other hypotheticals here. Maybe someone else will take up that challenge.

Try the "Filers Info" tab of the 1040 form.

If the investment account was titled in the wife's name only, and if the activity was coded properly in your tax program as belonging to the wife, the MFJ return would have had a $3000 loss and then the next year in MFS the wife would have used another $1500 of loss. The now ex-husband shouldn't have been entitled to any of that loss on his return last year. This year wife files as single and is back to the $3000 loss limitation. It is her account, has nothing to do with him except that she was foolish enough to allow him to lose a very large sum of her inheritance. I think she should file appropriately, and if that means she is entitled to claim the son, then she should. If he files first then she would have to paper file, but you could try to e-file and see if it goes through. Why is she willing to give away an exemption that you think is legitimately hers? If you are satisfied that her documentation gives her the exemption, I think she should claim the child. What am I missing?

How are others here handling the scrubbing of the fixed asset schedule? Are you simply deleting the assets? I did that on one corporation and it was a company that was required to fill in the Sch L balance sheet, so the program reduced the fixed assets and accumulated depreciation by the amount of the deletions. If you intend to use the EOY figures from last year's return as the BOY this year, you'd need to reduce the retained earnings for the amount of the 481(a) adjustment to keep in balance. If you are going to pretend the assets were never capitalized or depreciated, you'll have to change your beginning retained earnings amount by the amount of the adjustment. The first corp I filed had a beginning balance sheet that did not balance because I deleted the assets from the fixed asset schedule and didn't notice that it was out of balance. I had all the documentation attached, so it will be easy to explain if the client gets a notice.

This isn't correct. For the PTC (subsidy) the amount used in the calculation is MAGI and includes AGI, t/e interest, foreign earned income exclusion from form 2555, and the non-taxable portion of SS added back. The definition and calculation of MAGI that is used for form 8965 for the shared responsibility payment (the penalty) is different.

I was wondering too. There are student loans that are cancelled if the person works in a certain occupation for a period of time after graduation, but I don't believe the person would receive a 1099-C in those cases. Do tell, what's going on?

NC individual changes - see first link under additional information. http://www.dor.state.nc.us/incometaxupdates/index.html

It sounds like you are now asking about the 8962 to reconcile the PTC since since referenced line 11 and having more than one 1095. If that is the case, because you have more than one 1095 and the amounts are not the same for every month of the year on all of them, you must use the monthly input section that begins on line 12. The instructions for form 8962 include detailed instructions, starting on page 10, of what to enter in each column from the 1095s. It might be as simply as adding them together, BUT it can be more complicated depending on several more factors.

I'll leave this topic here in general chat for a while so that those that don't visit the ACA forum will see it, but really should have been posted there.

Yes, I posted about it yesterday in the ACA forum. The figure that is wrong on some of the 1095-As that were issued is the SLCSP. Here's another thread on the same thing: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> and this one touches on it too:

I'm not sure what you are asking and I think you are confused about the exemptions. Purchasing the insurance was a choice they made. The exemption would be to avoid the penalty from form 8965 (aka shared responsibility payment) for not having insurance for some portion or the entire year. The exemption relates only to the penalty and has nothing at all to do with repaying the subsidy on form 8962.

Logging in to the marketplace does work. The person must log in to the marketplace and open the 2014 application and from there must click on "Tax Forms" that is the last choice in the list at left. If the 1095-A is wrong, the person will see a big red box with the warning that the form as issued has the incorrect figures for the SLCSP on it. The figures on the incorrect ones are the 2015 amount and should be the 2014 amounts. The taxpayer may have already received an email also if his/her 1095-A is one with the error. If your client hasn't been notified and wants to check, or the preparer wants to confirm that the 1095-A has the correct SLCSP amounts is to use the tool on the Marketplace to recheck the form based on the age(s) of those insured. Be sure to enter the age(s) at the time of application, not the age attained during the year. Example, if the person's age was 45 on 1/1/14 when the policy started and their 46th birthday wasn't until March, enter 45 into the calculator to see the correct SLCSP. If that same person's coverage didn't start until July, then enter age 46. This is the tool on the Marketplace to recheck the SLCSP for 2014 and that handles multiple persons covered under one policy, or use this tool on the govt's HHS site that is for one individual (if a married couple, you'd have to add the two together). I've verified one already, and got the same figures from both sites.

For a family of 4 the 400% of FPL would be $94000 (23550 * 400%), so if they received any subsidy during the year they would owe the entire amount back without any cap on it. If the entire family had insurance for every month of the entire year that met the requirements of minimum essential coverage, they would check the box on line 61 of the 1040, page 2 and not have to fill out the 8965 at all because there would be no penalty.

Yes, code B on the 8965 for coverage gap of less than 3 months and does not need a marketplace exemption number. The exemption for this is claimed directly on that form.

This topic wasn't about whether someone chooses to round, how to work around the issue by not entering decimal points, who has the ability to round or be a tax preparer, program stability, or whether it's a particular user's priority; it was a question about how ATX chose to program the form.

I also got a warning message that the 150% ADS method was not allowed under the TRA 1997 law change when I tried to enter 7 years as the ADS life, but it did allow me to select "MACRS 150% Farm" with a 7-year life. Numbers didn't change, still gave me the message about switching to SL when it was better and limiting 2014 to 1/2 in the year of sale no matter what date I entered for the sale.

I agree with you and jmdavis that it should be 1/2 year in the year of sale. I'm not using ATX, and I checked it in UltraTax's depreciation module that I use and it calc'd it at 1/2 year's expense. However, what I saw when I displayed the calculation was that the program made an automatic switch to SL when that was advantageous and then limited that expense to the 1/2 year. Is it possible that is what ATX is doing?

Can you show me where I said it wouldn't generate a CP2000? I didn't. The statement I made was because Catherine's original post and her post #9 indicated that she was in doubt about the transaction being a valid rollover since it went back into the same account and because your post #12 said that rollover was not the proper treatment. I also said that she should keep the documentation that Randall suggested. I agree with that because she'll need that if the client receives a CP2000, and I included the PLR reference if the IRS tries to say the rollover isn't valid because it went back into the same account. I can't believe I had to explain all that. Sheesh.

I'm wondering too. I don't like to use the word "supplies" for these small equipment costs that are now being expensed since supplies now has its own de minimis threshold and rules. These small equipment or furniture costs aren't really supplies or materials in my mind since those labels connote things that are somehow used up. For those small tangible property costs formerly capitalized, I'm leaning toward a label that includes "De Minimis" something-or-another-that-is-descriptive.

Not sure who you were asking or if you were even being serious. If you want to discuss pricing for these forms, you really should start a separate topic instead of including the ensuing discussion in a topic entitled "Calculate Penalty?"

No, it's a valid rollover. Report it as such. Keep the documentation Randall suggested. Client must deposit the full amount withdrawn before taxes withheld, obviously. From Pub 590 - Rollover From One IRA Into Another You can withdraw, tax free, all or part of the assets from one traditional IRA if you reinvest them within 60 days in the same or another traditional IRA. Because this is a rollover, you cannot deduct the amount that you reinvest in an IRA. PLR 9010007 is the authority cited in TTB.

Form 8965 for calculating the penalty or reporting an exemption. You might start there by familiarizing yourself with that form and its instructions. Some exemptions can be claimed on the return without any additional paperwork, others require that the person apply for and receive the exemption from the marketplace and will be given an exemption # that is shown on the return. Form 8962 is used for reconciling the amount premium tax credit the person or family is actually eligible for against any advance credit (subsidy) they used during the year to offset their premium payments. You might want to take a look at Pub 5157 that is the VITA guide on the ACA used to train those preparers.

Income because the SSA has a specific order it pays the funds out, and it paid directly to the son and not the estate. The order of payment is included in the link you provided to SSA's form 1724. The son filled out that form and he must have indicated that he had the right to receive it, if he didn't and if it should have been included in the estate to be distributed to all beneficiaries, then he should have filled out the 1724 for the payment to be paid to the estate. Social security benefits are one type of income paid that is IRD. IRD retains the same character on the recipients return as it would have been reported on the original owner's tax return. SSA doesn't issue 1099-misc. Anyway, if the son's income is high enough that 85% of his own SS is being taxed, at least he is getting a break of 15% of the parent's SS not being taxed also.

We were probably typing at the same time, and I type slooooow any more.