jklcpa

Enter the code to show this is a single family dwelling. Because this was the taxpayer's primary residence, do not enter any days if the unit was a full rental beginning 5/1 with no personal use after that. The entry of those days are for vacation homes, short term rentals, and days of personal use after converting to rental. The days prior to converting to a full rental property are not counted as days of personal use. Put 8/12ths of real estate taxes and mortgage interest on Sch E, 4/12ths on Sch A, also put 8/12ths of insurance on Sch E, zero deduction for that on Sch A. Enter other monthly utility bills, management fees, etc incurred and paid after becoming a rental on Sch E. Depreciation on the real estate begins 5/1, should calculate ok since it is monthly. If you are entering any depreciation for tangible items, I think you would have to override so that the system doesn't enter a full year depreciation for those.

I thought of your posts too, Deb. Delaware has some affected too.

The gift tax return will show the value of the gift, the $14K exclusion, and the portion that is taxable. The page 1 of the form 709 will calculate the tax and will also allow you to apply the unified credit against the tax and he won't pay any gift tax on this. There is a lifetime limit on the unified credit that is tied to the estate tax, but in this case it sounds like that isn't in the realm of possibilities that the credit would be used up at this point. Not sure if there is any state gift tax in NY.

Taxpayers in 12 states will be unable to use certain federal tax breaks on their state tax returns because of Congress’s late passage of tax extenders legislation, leading to lower state tax refunds. Link to whole article from Accounting Today. These 12 states tend to pass yearly legislation to conform to federal tax breaks: • Arizona* • California • Georgia • Hawaii* • Iowa* • Idaho* • Indiana • North Carolina • Ohio* • Virginia* • Wisconsin* • West Virginia* * These states have introduced bills to update their conformity date and will likely conform in the near future.

lol Tom, I think we're all frustrated at this point with this ridiculousness and that of the ongoing changes to the repair regs also. I found my answer about when and how the gov't will be notifying those with incorrect forms. The marketplace will call +/or email those that are affected. The SLCSP shown on some 1095-A forms was the 2015 premium in some cases, not the 2014 amount. Here's the page on the marketplace that describes the issue, and it has a link to look up the appropriate SLCSP for 2014. ETA - Accounting Today's article said that people can log in to their marketplace account and should also see a notice in their mailbox that will state whether or not their 1095-A was one with the error. 2nd edit - log on to the marketplace, open the 2014 application, and then click on "Tax Forms" which is the bottom choice in the list at left. If the 1095-A is affected, a big red box will appear with the message stating that the 1095-A originally issued is wrong.

If this isn't a vacation home that the person isn't using after converting to rental, then you probably have the wrong code entered into ATX. Is this a home that the owner converted fully to rental beginning in May that has no personal use after that date of conversion? Or is this a second (vacation) home that they decided to rent and still also use themselves?

ATX used to have a "Detail" tab right next to the one that is labeled " Detail - Items". That's the one I always used. Maybe it's still there?

I don't know why the U.S. News & Report didn't show the AP's whole article. Here is the AP's entire article that says the government is still investigating the root of the problem, it appears to be with a "benchmark" figure, and that the 50,000 that have already filed will receive special instructions on what to do from here. I'd assume that the "benchmark" referred to is the SLCSP. I want to know how and when the government will be notifying those with incorrect forms.

Code T indicates that the preparer of the 1099R was not sure if the 5-year holding period was met. Agree about the 8606, but read the instructions for line 19 to see if the distribution should be included there. There is an exception for death and if there were contributions made to the Roth between 1998 and 2009.

...file Form 1040X within 3 years (including extensions) after the date you filed your original return or within 2 years after the date you paid the tax, whichever is later. If you filed your original return early (for example, March 1 for a calendar year return), your return is considered filed on the due date (generally April 15). However, if you had an extension to file (for example, until October 15) but you filed earlier and we received it July 1, your return is considered filed on July 1.

That's not always true. It can be taxable if there is a negative capital account. Even if no money changes hands, the fact that the partner is relieved of that negative capital account is a deemed distribution that is taxed as ordinary income.

Hmm, the way I understood the law and this new one easing the penalties is that the reimbursements weren't allowed starting in 2014 but there wasn't total clarity in the law, and so if employers did do that and are still doing that, then the IRS has given companies through 6/30/15 to remedy these errors, and the $100/day/employee won't be assessed on small employers that did it wrong prior to that date. If the error continues after 6/30 of this year, then the IRS can assess the penalties. That's all I thought this new rule meant. Am I totally wrong too?

Instructions for 5329, line 2 - for the exception # 05 : Qualified retirement plan distributions up to the amount you paid for unreimbursed medical expenses during the year minus 10% (or 7.5% if you or your spouse were born before January 2, 1950) of your adjusted gross income (AGI) for the year. Yes, $16,000 you entered on line 2 was after this limitation. Yes, the part that is subject to the penalty is $9,000. Correct. If the loan from a 401(k) exceeds 50% of the nonforfeitable balance in the retirement account, the loan can create taxable income under §1.72(p)-1. You can see some of that discussion in my post #10 from >this topic. See this page at IRS re: statutory maximums of loans and here is a whole Q&A section from Cornell Univ Law School online library on the topic of loans treated as distributions.

The ex-spouses may agree to any allocation between the two of them, and must apply that same % split to all of the figures on the 1095-A. If they can't agree on a split, then all the figures are divided 50% to each. It doesn't matter who worked or paid the premium if they can't agree, then it's a 50-50 split.

Yes, really, I wasn't joking. It's not available yet anywhere that I've found, not even in draft form.

If clothing is adaptable to street wear for everyday use, then it isn't deductible. If it can't be, then it would be deducted like a uniform would be. Either way, I wouldn't consider it a depreciable item. I found an interesting article that appears to be written by an organization for a professional musician forum, and deals with this and cites some cases and has specific examples. It's obviously nothing official but is interesting because of how the clothing is to be considered: http://www.polyphonic.org/article/is-concert-clothing-tax-deductible/

This is what I received earlier today from IRS through their Guidewire email: Notice 2015-17 provides transition relief from the assessment of excise tax under section 4980D for small employers (in particular, employers who are not applicable large employers) who reimburse or pay a premium for an individual health insurance policy for an employee. Notice 2015-17 also addresses the treatment for federal tax and for market reform purposes of arrangements reimbursing premiums of 2%-shareholder employees of S corporations. Finally, Notice 2015-17 addresses application of the market reforms to certain employer arrangements to fund Medicare premium payments or to provide a TRICARE-related health reimbursement arrangement (HRA). Notice 2015-17 will be in IRB 2015-10, dated March 9, 2015.

I saw that earlier and wondered the same thing. I haven't had a chance to look into it further yet. Anyone else?

Catherine, I had a return where I was having trouble removing an input screen and was coming back after I'd delete it. It turned out that the problem was a linked form that that main form was connected to, so when I'd delete it, the program would see the other form and add it back in. It might have been an asset on the depreciation screen that was linked to a schedule C or something like that. It can also be a state code up at the top where if a state form is linked to it, the same thing will happen. Look around in that input for something along those lines and I bet you'll find the source of your trouble.

I don't think we know enough about July to say it was 2 or 3 month gap. OP said: If taxpayer had coverage for even 1 day in July then the gap would be 2 months, but if coverage was only through 6/30 and not reinstated until the month of Oct, then the gap is 3 months and doesn't meet that exception to the penalty for those months. The OP implies that there was no coverage for the 3 months of July through Sept, so I'm going with a count of 3 months.

The IRS hasn't finished it yet.

When you have clients with situations like you've presented here, you have to ask them if they notified the exchange with each change of "coverage family". This 1095-A appears to be correct since the amounts shown for SLCSP effectively doubled beginning in July indicating that the exchange was notified since the wife's coverage came through the exchange also. I think where this could have been a problem is if when the infant was born, if the parents contacted the insurance company directly to add the baby and didn't notify the exchange. In that case, the coverage family would have increased by one person but the 1095-A reporting of the SLCSP would still have been based on only two people. This was NOT the case with your client because both children are covered by medicaid, and they were not part of the coverage family for this purpose. Another good example would be a married couple where one of the parties went on Medicare during the year and didn't notifying the exchange. The 1095-A would have reported the cost of the SLCSP for 2 people but should have decreased to one person starting with the month that Medicare coverage started. Third example is if someone moved and didn't notify the exchange and the cost of the SLCSP was different in the new location. In each of these scenarios, we would have to look up the cost of that SLCSP for the proper number of people for that locale.

It might depend on who the charity sells it to. There is a different handling if the charity sells it to a needy person at an amount greatly below its value. Here's the IRS pub specific to donors of vehicles that explains each of the limitation regarding donated vehicles: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4303.pdf

I don't know if Covered CA changed their formulas, but I played with the site and filled out some of the basics: $54K of income, 2 persons enrolling both age 35, two children ages 5 & 1 not enrolling That calculated a monthly subsidy of $170. When I used the same demographics and reduced the income to $40K, I got a monthly subsidy of $335. With that reduced income at $40K, if I remove one adult so that it's like what this couple had where only the husband applied for coverage in May & June, it calcs a monthly subsidy of $87 per month. Those figures based on around $40K are pretty close to what this couple received each month as advanced subsidy. Based on this, I still think it is a problem with how the application was filled out or entered. Deb, what is the income of husband only? Is it around that $40K level?

It's not our responsibility to determine whether a policy has MEC, but we have to ask the question of the client so that we can complete the tax forms and return properly. The client will either know and be able to tell us, or they will have to make the inquiries.