jklcpa

I'll try it again, but as of early 2021 all I was getting was a blank screen after logging in. When I called in the next time the Vanguard rep told me that the site didn't play well with Firefox.

I have 3 sites that don't work with Firefox and have been using Chrome for EFTPS, an online pharmacy for husband and mom, and for my own Vanguard accounts. What is everyone using to access EFTPS? MS Edge?

Haha, nope! I am ignoring all things tax and the pile of cr@p covering my desk at the moment. I'm doing my usual lack of Christmas planning and decorating, and am struggling with decisions on what to get everyone as gifts.

@BLACK BART, that message wouldn't have come to me. Maybe Eric gets those at some point, but would probably be quicker to PM directly. I wouldn't have been able to help with log in issues anyway, so I am glad that you were able to get back in.

I would included it if the amended return includes any credits covered by the due diligence because you are a paid preparer now signing that return, and even if the credits might be unchanged by the amendment, they still are an offset to the tax liability to arrive at the resulting refund or balance due.

It will have to be paper filed.

@Terry D Best wishes for success on the exam!

The CPA exam was similarly graded on a curved scale, and the grading of the essay questions was totally subjective as well. No contesting the grade, and yes, I do remember that it was further subjected to a "curve" or something at the state level where the state board of accountancy would decide how many applicants would pass. If they wanted to, they could adjust the grade by a point or two depending on how many new CPAs they wanted to let in or keep out! This was in the early to mid 1980s. At one time, my state did have a problem with some regulation that allowed a huge number of foreign students to take the exam under our rules, but that loophole has been closed for a while now.

If you go through the calculations and it is indeed a loss instead of earnings, then the client needs only withdraw the $6,800 in your example. The 1099R should be issued for the withdraw of $6,800 with a taxable amount of -0- and code 8. You might have to fool the software so that it doesn't try to charge the 6% penalty on the $200 decline in value. Also, losses on IRAs in the final year of distribution are no longer deductible as a miscellaneous itemized deduction on Sch A. It is my understanding that if the client has multiple Roth IRA accounts, only the one that received the excess contribution needs to be included in the calculation of the income portion of the distribution. Also, if the Roth IRA was a new account that was opened with this excess contribution, then distributing the entire account balance will satisfy the withdraw of excess+income requirement.

I'm with Abby. I never upgrade an OS on an existing machine. As long as all of the software supports the OS, why upgrade and risk something not working properly or being unstable afterward? In other words, I don't fix something that isn't broken, and I'll get whatever the latest OS is the next time I purchase a new computer.

I hope everyone enjoyed the holiday. We had ribeyes on the grill and saved our bigger meal of a small turkey breast for today b/c my husband had just finished the latest of his most recent medical treatments on Wed, and we wanted to make sure he was feeling well enough to enjoy the turkey.

CAVEAT: Totally unresearched, and I haven't had this exact situation, but this is my thinking - I think you should review the information in the instructions to Sch F under the heading "Farm Owned and Operated By Spouses" and consider the following (https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sf ) : whether they were a H-W LLC reporting as a disregarded entity, whether they were filing/or should have been filing a 1065, whether they both materially participated, were actually a joint venture, and if so, did they make the election by dividing all the income and deductions in half, each filing his and her own Sch Fs, and each filing his/her own Sch SE My unresearched reaction is that if they actually met the rules to be a joint venture and properly reported it as such, then the remaining spouse would have that 1/2 of the NOL and the 1/2 that would be attributed to the deceased TP is gone. But if the entire activity was reported entirely under the TP's name and SSN, then I don't think the spouse can claim the NOL. Of course, it is entirely possible that spouse meets all the requirements of ownership and participation but that the tax reporting was incorrectly reported on one Sch F in the TP's name, and in that case, I don't know if there is a remedy that wouldn't look like spouse is now claiming the new fact pattern solely to be able to claim more of the NOL. Sorry if that isn't very helpful. Maybe someone else with farm reporting experience will chime in.

In general, loss carryovers and other tax attributes are traced back to the individual whose activity or business interest created the loss, and those losses of a decedent are not passed on to the surviving spouse or the estate. In the year of death, a married couple filing a joint tax return, both parties can use the losses, even income attributable to the surviving spouse after the decedent's death because of filing jointly. Maybe this article will help: https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2017/jan/carryovers-death-spouse.html

Yes, it can. It will need to issue a 1099-DIV to the recipient(s). This entity will also have the same issue of double taxation as regular C corps. Keep in mind that as a C corp this entity can put an owner on payroll, create a deductible expense at the corporate level, and can control the timing of income recognition at the personal level since it is not a flow-through entity.

It's because of the TCJA. The linked article isn't dated, but I believe its contents are still relevant and highlights the reasons for separate tracking for both corporate and noncorporate taxpayers. Someone else may be able to correct anything that is amiss in its contents, or as someone else recently posted in another topic, you'll have to do your own research from here. https://www.bakertilly.com/insights/untangling-tax-reform-business-losses-and-nols-for-corporate-and-noncorpora

Is the debt recourse, nonrecourse, or qualified nonrecourse? https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2016/nov/basis-for-bad-boys.html

@Patrick Michael I searched your posts and found that you use Drake which does offer practice returns and the solutions. I logged in to its site and scrolled to the last item in the menu at left that is "Training". This has a clickable link to all the practice returns available for 2020 tax year including #12 that is for a 2-person domestic partnership. These come up as pdfs that you may download or print, and the solutions contain the correctly completed returns.

It is possible to have nondividend distributions taxed as ordinary income if the S corp also has debt basis that had been reduced by losses and not restored to its full value before the distribution takes place. Max W didn't give us enough information to determine if this is what happened or if 2020 was handled properly.

NET gain on line 1, but you should read the 1116 instructions starting on page 7 to see if you need to complete the worksheets and if any adjustment to that figure is required. Line 2 is for expenses directly related to the foreign income such as work supplies purchased that would be directly related to foreign wages. Basis of stock does NOT go on line 2.

Mine are similar to Randall's. My problem isn't the 3/15 deadline but with the 1099 filings where I am given the entire year's activity to summarize and reconcile. If there is substantial activity that you summarize, you could try to convert these bookkeeping clients on a monthly or quarterly basis, depending on their other needs such as local, state, +/or payroll deposits and filings. In that way, you'd only have a small amount of work to wrap up the year end accounting.

This is a privately owned unofficial forum made up of other tax preparers who graciously help one another in our spare time. Demanding immediate answers on any forum, including this one, will not get the help you desire any faster and may actually result in not being helped at all! You can try calling ATX tech support, but I'm not sure they are still offering support back as early as 2014 any more.

Sylvia, it would be helpful to know specifically what error messages you are getting and when they occur. Also, I moved this to its own topic so not to revive one that was 6 years old, and I've removed your private information. Please know that this is a privately owned unofficial forum that was started for ATX users. No one here is from CCH that will be calling you directly, but hopefully some of our members may be able to steer you in the right direction so that you can use the program.

It is different. There are 18 states that allow composite filings, and at this time only six of those have approved PTET filings and two more have proposals in the works, matching up the states listed in Lion's link above. The other 13 states with PTET never allowed composite filings, your state of OR being one of those.

It's real. The passthrough entity can file a composite state return on behalf of all nonresident shareholder's or partners as a group, and then the individuals are relieved of the filing requirement in that state if they have no other income there.

You are mostly correct as far as your points about the SALT limitation, but the payment made on behalf of the individual owner where a composite is not filed does have to opportunity to include the taxes paid in the calculation of itemized deductions vs the standard where it may be possible to gain some benefit if that owner hasn't already exceeded the limit and is itemizing. Also, there are more things consider if you are advising and preparing the S corp returns, and especially if there is more than one owner. The operation in nonresident states to create a liability isn't an absolute given, but has the *potential* to do so. Filing a composite return may yield a higher tax overall than if filing individually because not all owners may be in the highest bracket in the state, especially if operating in states having graduated rates, and the individual owner may possibly be able to utilize other deductions or exclusions. Some reasons why filing individually rather than using a composite return may be better: the individual may be able to have some of that payment refunded that the passthrough made on his/her behalf, the individual will also be able to claim a credit on the personal resident state return for taxes paid to other states, and if the individual's return has other items of deductions or losses that factor into AGI, filing individually may yield a lower state tax than the composite return at the highest rate in that state Not meant to be all-inclusive as I'm sure I missed some points, but here are some other considerations in deciding to file individually: If the passthrough has more than one owner, composite payments made for only those that are nonresidents may violate the company's operating agreement as to making equal distributions for all if there are owners or partners that are actually residents of some states, so cash payments may be required to some owners to make sure that distributions are equal for all, especially in S corps where unequal distributions are prohibited; Some owners may have other income from those nonresident states, so the benefit of the composite return is negated or is to the detriment (see the point above about credit for taxes paid to other states); Owners move, so there may be times when an owner is a part-year resident of two of the states where the company operates; Owners with potential nexus or domicile issues in a particular state should carefully consider whether or not to file composite returns on his/her behalf because the statute of limitations does not start in that state if no individual return is filed; Composite filing at the company level does not allow the individual taxpayer to choose between MFJ or MFS, if there may be some benefit to doing so for a particular state.