jklcpa

I don't think it is "rigged" at all. When this couple filled out the application on the CA exchange, did they perhaps use AGI without including the nontaxable portion of the SSA or could they have underestimated their income on that application in some other way? Do you have a copy of that to know for sure what they did? It is possible for people to take too much APTC that could have this kind of payback. For someone in the 300-400% of FPL range, for every $1000 of income that wasn't anticipated or included when the insurance application was submitted last year, that has the potential to add an additional $95 to the taxpayer's monthly contribution toward health care premiums that they can pay themselves, and would reduce the amounts on the 8962, part 2, col c by that amount. There's also the limitation in col E that compares the premiums of the actual plan chosen to that of the lowest silver after the taxpayer's contribution, but I see that as a less likely limitation for people to be subject to that where the income changed.

Not only that, but you have to set the jumpers on the old drive so that it is seen as a slave drive. There are probably online videos to show you how to do that along with how to identify pin 1 so that the cables are attached properly, but if you don't know what you are doing, you should probably hire someone that does. If you wanted the paths of where the backup files were stored, the ones for 2009-2011 are C:Program Files(x86)ATX2009Backup C:Program Files(x86)ATX2010Backup C:Program Files(x86)ATX2011Backup In the backup directory, you'll see a couple of folders and then a list of files with client names with the extension .bck . Those are the backup files created by the ATX program. If you use the program's backup/restore function from within the program, it will allow you to choose a path to point to where the backup files are stored. Of course, if you are connecting the drive as a slave, obviously "C" will change to another letter depending on how many drives the new machine has already. I can't tell you about 2012 and forward after the program was revamped. Good luck.

What exactly are you trying to restore? Client data files for the returns? Are you asking for the directory or path of where the backup files are located for those prior years or something much more technical? Did you not make or keep backups or exports of the returns on external media?

Goodness, I'm #3 out of 79 CPAs in a 5 mile radius, and 342 in a 10 mile radius with another 52 others with afsp. 10 mile radius of listed CPAs, EAs, and those in the afsp total 456. That's a lot of competition in our little state, and many people drive more than 10 miles to see me! ETA - So that I could see the competition I'm more likely up against, I widened my search to 25 miles because some people do drive that far to see me. The message asked if I wanted to see the top 1000 names or it suggested that I narrow or refine my search parameters.

Right above the box where you type, second line, 4th from the left is the "strikethrough" formatting. Make sure that is not selected. I fixed your post. Welcome to the forum.

Joan might be correct. Is there a box to check to force itemizing for the federal to allow the Sch A input for the state? I have to do that with Delaware because it also allows the Fed to use the standard and itemized for state. In those cases, I e-file the federal in one transmission with the higher standard deduction, and then I go back and check the box to force itemizing to allow the Sch A to be included and then I transmit the state in a second e-file. The IRS doesn't care because it's already processed the 1040. If I don't do it this way, the Sch A isn't sent with the state return and the processing is held up while the state sends the client a letter requesting that the schedule be mailed or faxed in.

John, I read that too. To be clear, if the Fed uses the standard, aren't NC residents allowed to itemize for state purposes within those stated limits?. It sounds like what Terry is asking is why he isn't allowed to itemize on NC unless sch A is present on the Fed return also, because he said his input was greyed out. That's what I thought was weird and why I asked about the filing status, wondering if it was an MFS status causing his problem.

I'm thinking a lot of that should be a capital loss. See what you think after reading pub 535, page 3, middle column at the bottom under the heading "going into business", if you don't go into business and the expenses were incurred for a specific business or project. About the legal fees, were those to handle the purchase of the business and all that involves, or was part of that to try to recoup his deposit? The part of the legal fees that were for the investigation and purchase of the specific business, I'd consider part of the capital loss. If part of those legal fees were incurred in an attempt to recoup the deposit, I'd be inclined to separate that out and put that portion on Sch A as a miscellaneous itemized deduction as legal fees that are paid for the production or collection of income, or preservation of assets. Those are my thoughts right now on how I would consider this without research. Maybe some of our other members with more experience with purchasing businesses will chime in if I'm off the mark on this.

Weird, that's not really the way the instructions read though. Is it the filing status causing a problem?

The taxpayer can go online to the IRS site to get a variety of transcripts online without you having reconstruct the return. That is available for the current processing year and the 3 prior processing years. The FAQs says it takes about 3 weeks for the transcript in electronic format, so using this would depend on how big a hurry someone is in. It's definitely not an optimal solution, but might be a consideration for a return of a more complex nature. get transcript transcript type and method of delivery get transcript FAQs

JB, you and anyone else should never feel that way. I know I've made my fair share of mistakes on here, and research materials and internet searches have save my butt at times too. Everyone brings something of value to the site, and I can say unequivocally that I'd be begging for reassurance if I had to do some of the EIC returns that are presented that others here answer with ease. The same goes for obscure farm issues.

I agree with you. If the taxpayer can not check the box on line 61 of the 1040 and does not meet any of the exemptions, then the worksheets in the instructions are used to calculate the shared responsibility payment to be included on the return. The form 8965 is not filed with the return. The worksheets are not filed either but should be retained to document the calculations. I read your post from the other day on this subject, and at first it seemed to me that you were confusing the worksheet with the form. For what it's worth, the worksheets are never e-filed with the returns unless the IRS specifically requires it.

Is there also unemployment income shown on the 1099G or only the repayment? How much is the repayment?

Drake has general worksheets for the health care input and basic worksheets for the 8962 and 8965, but nothing that comes close to the calculations for this situation, at least not that I've found. As I said, I did all those calcs by hand on paper, and did make an error in looking up the one limitation. I didn't have the benefit of inputting the numbers into a return to see how the figures would change, so I was working only in theory. Tom's client had the added complication of having a social security limitation in the mix as well. One thing that I spotted was that Tom's client had only exceed the 400% of FPL limitation by a small amount, relatively speaking. When that limit is exceeded, any chance of the subsidy is lost and would result in a repayment. That is when it can be extremely beneficial to consider the contribution to the retirement account or HSA that can be made up until April 15th that may remedy some of the situations where the client has the shared responsibility penalty. If you don't have it, here's a link to Rev Proc 2014-41 with the 2 methods. The method #2 (the alternative method) has some examples to try to clarify the calculations.

There is no way to code the 1099G worksheet if the only amount shown is a repayment. If it is for a prior year and is less than $3000, you would have to enter it directly on line 23 of sch A, and if client can't otherwise itemize then there is no tax benefit derived from the repayment. Repayment of unemployment compensation. If you repaid in 2014 unemployment compensation you received in 2014, subtract the amount you repaid from the total amount you received and enter the difference on line 19 of Form 1040, line 13 of Form 1040A, or line 3 of Form 1040EZ. On the dotted line next to your entry enter “Repaid” and the amount you repaid. If you repaid unemployment compensation in 2014 that you included in income in an earlier year, you can deduct the amount repaid on Schedule A (Form 1040), line 23, if you itemize deductions. If the amount is more than $3,000, see Repayments , earlier. If over $3,000 and for a prior year, see pub 17 for general handling and possibly taking a credit against tax under a claim of right.

With all the new information, I agree that this is clearly a case for your client taking the deduction.

The message below was an email I received from my software vendor this morning. I can't say I'm surprised. IRS Processing Delays The IRS is having issues processing returns timely, causing longer than normal turnaround times. It is uncertain when they will catch up and return to normal processing. Rest assured, we will post Acks as soon as we receive them.

Client can't deduct the mortgage interest because client has no ownership interest in the property. Mother can't claim the deduction because she didn't make the payments.

That's great, Tom, and I'm glad to have helped both you and your client. That is a big savings to not have to pay with the added bonus of saving for retirement too.

So I'm really curious about how ATX handled this. In calculating MAGI for purposes of the PTC reconciliation, isn't the program adding back the difference between lines 20a and 20b no matter what year it is for? That is what should happen according to §36B(d)(2)(B ). I couldn't find anywhere that said SSA payments of prior years received in the current year as a lump sum can be excluded.

Have you considered updating to the current version? Keeping older versions like that presents a security risk.

Go to MyATX, about 1/2 way down the list at left, click on ATX forms schedule. The page that is displayed shows that the planner is scheduled for release on 2/6.

What was the income the wife received? Was it SSA, SSI, or SSDI? It makes a difference in calculating household income depending on which it was.

8962, part 2, you are only filling in boxes for May to Dec, right? What is in col E. I think it should be ~ $13/month, and it appears that he was receiving about $200 too much each month from May - Dec. If that is the case, yes I'd agree that the repayment of the APTC is $600 in this case because it is capped at that. It appears that his household income just squeaks by at being less than the 200% of FPL. One percent more and he would have had a repayment of $1500, not $600.

Errrg! Tom, you are correct. In my haste I looked at the wrong column. The max payback is the $1250, and that makes the max sec 162 deduction under the alternative formula #2 to be $1595...if *I'm * on the right track with this mess. That will also raise his MAGI and AGI, so if trying to use the retirement contribution or HSA to get him below the 400% of FPL it will need a larger investment of funds.