Terry D EA

Check out the pub below. The big question here is as FDNY pointed out. Was there any type of physical injury associated with the emotional injury? https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4345.pdf

Well I certainly wouldn't want to ignore it in this case. Total sales were 600K and 80K were from credit card sales. I did itemize the income sources on Sch C line 1. That way the detail is reported and if the IRS would question, then we have it and the docs to back it up.

Sch C client received a 1099K from their merchant services company. There is no input entry for a 1099K. At first thought, I would think entering it on Line referencing the 1099K would be the correct way to enter this. Any other suggestions?

Good move at this time of year, well, anytime of year is good for firing a client who cannot tell he truth. You have your suspicions and used good judgement. Rest easy now!!

"All my Ass estimated payment coupons" I'm sure this is a typo and you ran out of time to edit the post. Maybe Judy can fix it for you. Just sayin!!

Judy, I agree with you if those conditions of non-qualified use apply. The original post didn't give any reasons why the taxpayer moved. I think Jack I both assumed he just relocated which if he did, then no exclusion. Hopefully Christian will give us more information. I still stand against preparing the return the way the client wants. I know Christian didn't say that specifically but it seemed like a possibility from his reply. Hence, my comments.

I am going to learn the macros after season. Didn't and don't have time to learn them now. However, I do see how they would be a great help. One question, if you create the macros in 2016 will they roll forward to 2017 or do you have to recreate them each year? From my experience with Drake this year, I would think they should come forward.

Catherine, I failed to read your original post clearly. After doing so, the loan in the dad's name doesn't qualify toward the annual exclusion. As I read the article below, I don't think paying off the son's loan does either. This article clearly states the funds have to be paid to the educational institution and no one else. I have been at it since 6 this morning and am quite tired so I may not be reading the article clearly. See what you think. https://www.wsj.com/articles/pay-tuition-without-the-gift-tax-1435599143

That would be a good trick and it would be interesting to see how he would pull it off. I hope you are not preparing his return the way HE wants you to. I would insist on preparing the return by the tax code and not the client's convoluted understanding. Be careful, and check the circular 231 code of ethics. You know what is right and wrong here. As I see it, only one way to prepare the return. He doesn't qualify for the exclusion and that is that. I wouldn't concern myself with whether the service closely checks this or not. I just would not be part of the gamble. Just my 2.5 cents worth.

I agree with Catherine. There are enough folks here to help with Drake questions and Drake support is nothing less than phenomenal. I am an ex-ATX user and during my time with them, never did they answer the phone in three rings. When it was Sabre and William and the others were there, the support was good so I want to give credit where it is deserved. When I left them, I have not looked back and in no way regret the change. Don't waste your time on the third party resellers to save money. Been there and done that and wish I would have just switched to Drake and been done with it. The only one I tried for one year that was halfway decent was Tax Slayer Pro. But...they did not have some of the forms I need. So, why chance it, go with something that others recommend that is solid.

Catherine, The only way I see the loans would count toward the annual gift exclusion, is if there were an agreement stating so. Some language stating the purpose of the loan. But... is the loan portion that falls under the annual gift tax exclusion one where the money was loaned to the giftee (Is that a word) without having to repay it. The money he gave his son to purchase the home would definitely be a gift and a gift return would be required if the amount is over the minimum of 14K.

All of the responses you have received are correct. The rule is he must have lived two out of the last five years he owned the home. They do not have to be consecutive.

All I can add is, I'm sorry you all are experiencing this. I have had no problems with anything like this whatsoever. I used ATX for a lot of years and do fully understand your loyalty to it. I am also resistant to change but sometimes you just got to bite the bullet. I hope ATX can work out their problems and become what it used to be. If those who are being billed for PRS returns for a separate form have purchased what used to be ATX Max, I don't see why on earth you would be billed for accessing forms that are already there. Especially, in JB's post. I would want to know from ATX why it let me prepare the return with those forms and then lock me out. Sounds similar to a bait and switch tactic.

Yes we are all tired and it seems the simplest and obvious things are the ones we overlook. Only 12 more days!!!!

I guess I could see the IRS's position with the Sch C. Not sure how it differs from renting a room in your home, other than falling into the personal use category. Interesting!

Yeah, usually poor planning on their part doesn't constitute a lot of sympathy on my part. After I have told them to do the estimated taxes, call to make an appointment to do an estimate mind-year, contact me if you have a major change in your financial position; etc.....sorry no sympathy there and I hate to offer the words "told you so" but it is what it is.

I agree local or ATX. But...using Drake and not having any of these issues.

Not using ATX. In Drake there is a box to include the IPPIN. Are you sure there are no other areas to enter this information. It sounds like the PIN that you are talking about is the normal 5 digit pin entered either by the taxpayer or ERO. I know your frustrated but just curious.

The wording indicates the partnership ended 5/18/2016. The 1065 needs to be completed with each partner getting their respective share of the income and expenses from Jan thru May assuming they are a calendar year tax payer and not a fiscal year.. You also list the K-1 to the 20% partner and the 80% partner as their final k-1. From the time of the partnership ended thru the remaining year, the 100% gets everything on Sch C as a disregarded entity. I agree with jasdim, I wouldn't do it the other way unless there was a corporate resolution or if it was spelled out in the original operating agreement.

Just to add, the IPPIN is an identify theft pin that MUST be entered for the return to transmit.

When during 2016 did the partnership terminate? There must be two members to be a partnership. The remaining partner (now 100% owner) cannot just throw in the towel and do as you say. The partnership must windup business and be terminated. Were there any assets left in the partnership? If so, were they distributed to the partner's according to their percentage? Are there any remaining receivables? What are the papers that were filed to have the 20% member removed? Was this a buy out transaction? If you can establish a termination date and show all remaining assets have been distributed to the partners, then the remaining 100% can be a LLC taxed as a disregarded entity. You will still have to complete a 1065. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered to give you a good definitive response. Check out the link below to see if anything can help https://www.pwc.com/us/en/tax-services/publications/insights/assets/pwc-tax-implications-partnership-terminations.pdf

I don't think you have any choice but to reopen a 1041 because of the information on the 1099's.

According to the table below from Pub 970, something is wrong as you should be allowed the deduction. Not using ATX anymore so I can't be of help there but I would look for something entered that is not allowing the deduction. Table 4-2.Effect of MAGI on Student Loan Interest Deduction IF your filing status is... AND your MAGI is... THEN your student loan interest deduction is... single, head of household, or qualifying widow(er) not more than $65,000 not affected by the phaseout. more than $65,000 but less than $80,000 reduced because of the phaseout. $80,000 or more eliminated by the phaseout. married filing joint return not more than $130,000 not affected by the phaseout. more than $130,000 but less than $160,000 reduced because of the phaseout. $160,000 or more eliminated by the phaseout.

Well, I thought I would finish a little early this year. Not now, just had one clients who is a single S-Corp Shareholder tell me they were sending all the information for the S-Corp and a Sch C business along with their personal by Wednesday for me to get done before the 18th. Uh..........maybe not. Nasty CRUT just came in too. Extension.......likely. Still picking up new folks each week. So it looks like long days and nights ahead.

Reading all of this, I am beginning to wonder if freezing my credit will be good enough. According to the credit bureaus it should be. Well, "should be" is not an absolute. Maybe I didn't hear them correctly.