jainen

>>Sundial Bridge<< I was up there three months ago and that bridge is the most awesome, beautiful thing ever built! Not only does it LOOK stunning, but it SOUNDS incredible. I'm waiting for the day when some local percussionists realize what you've got, tune the bridge, and call down the gods for a monster steel drum concert. I enjoyed it almost as much as Cal's bookstore. Edit: Plus, you get KPIG radio now!

>>What is your hometown famous for?<< Santa Cruz, California, is viewed by outsiders in a lot of different ways. We show up on the Drudge Report fairly often for various issues concerning marijuana and/or socialism, but I don't know a single person that has an issue with either one. We are considered a hotbed of gay rights activity, but again I don't know anyone involved in that. Newsweek says Pacific Collegiate School is the #2 public high school in the whole country, but I don't know anyone who agrees it even IS a public school, and my son enrolled as a 7th-grader. Some fools in Southern California insist we are not the original Surf City, but their brains are pickled in warm brine. You wouldn't believe the rickety old roller coaster that still runs here, so I'll skip that. We built a big factory for making Hubba Bubba but it doesn't actually do that. Ummm. I don't really know. What have y'all heard?

>> Q. Where will the government get this money?<< >> A. From taxpayers. << You are apparently not familiar with the budget process as most recently practiced by the federal government. Unlike the states, which aren't allowed to run deficits, the U.S. Treasury can spend an unlimited amount of money without regard to whether the money actually exists or not.

>>They have sued others for using it.<< I believe the principal challenger was the IRS, which will not allow anyone to suggest that they can get the REFUND quickly. Only the IRS itself can issue a refund, not the banks. Block now calls it "Instant money" or "Classic RAL." Others call it Rapid Access Loan, etc. If you think your competition is acting unethically (misrepresentation), you can file a complaint with the Office of Professional Responsibility or the appropriate state board. If you think they are violating the business & professions code (false advertising), you can complain to the local district attorney. Your position should be documented with photos, legal rulings, etc. Personally, I don't think it's worth the time.

>>Is there not a flow thru on this?<< Not all real estate taxes deductible on Schedule A would necessarily be eligible for the Real Estate Tax Deduction. The software can't guess whether yours are or not.

>>forgiveness of debt on real property owned by the business<< It's not exactly "forgiveness." For business real estate the cancellation of debt is excluded from income, but is reflected in a basis adjustment which presumably will increase gain. The adjustment also affects other tax attributes such as loss carryovers. You will need to research this subject to see how it applies to any particular taxpayer.

>>the IRS and the banks are suggesting that you fill in the worksheet for the RRC with the maximum amounts so that line 70 will be zero.<< I don't know the original source of this rumor that the banks and EF intermediaries are spreading, but one thing is for sure -- the IRS has NOT notified tax preparers "suggesting" anything, certainly not that you should file an incorrect return. If anyone sees a genuine citation in any of this gossip, let us know. Frankly, I think there is an ethics problem and possibly some legal risk in signing a return that deliberately omits a credit to avoid normal IRS processing. Remember when the banks first freaked out about RALs for Earned Income Credit? Same excuse: IRS processing delays. I guess if the taxpayers are in such a hurry to get their money back, we should expect the banks to feel the same way.

>>the additional 10% represents rental expenses I paid out of pocket. The proceeds are in my bank account<< I'm not comfortable with the scenario, but I might be convinced with reasonable facts and circumstances. It would have to clearly be a BUSINESS bank account with the money designated (and actually to be used) for a specific business purpose. This is a very unlikely arrangement for individuals with a residential rental. As for reimbursing oneself for expenses previously incurred, I don't believe that is a very strong position in terms of the tracing rules. Again, excellent documentation with a clear business purpose might make it stronger. In particular, there is an exception for construction loans; perhaps something could be developed along those lines. But I doubt it.

>>pmi on rental properties<< The fact that the loan is secured by rental property is completely irrelevant. The only question is whether the loan proceeds were used in the rental activity, such as purchasing or improving the property. In the original post it was called a "rental mortgage," but apparently the loan was in place previously so that is not a clear description.

>>no such require exists for pmi on a business loan<< I hope nobody is asking about a business deduction for PMI on a NON-business loan. My reference to Schedule E and Pub 535 was for the definition of a business loan. Taxbilly cited Pub 527, perhaps to point out that mortgage insurance is not even mentioned in the same category with other insurance covering business assets and activity.

>>there is no such requirement for Schedule E<< Yes, there is in fact a very similar requirement. See the instructions for Lines 12 and 13 of Schedule E, as well as Chapter 4 of Pub 535.

>>It is a business expense now. << The answer assumes, of course, that the proceeds of the mortgage were used to acquire or improve the property, although nothing in the original post suggested this was the case.

>>not working<< Party on the weekend. Try again come Monday.

>>Is there any way I can just forget this 1099-C?<< I would ignore it.

>>Or mother claims both kids since she's parent to both<< Take a close look at this with actual figures. Combined total tax for the two returns should be about the same whichever parent files as HoH. But the second child may add more than $1000 to the mother's EIC, while only worth half that on the father's higher income.

>>if the other parent got the credit for the missing child?<< Not possible--the Recovery Rebate Credit was not available before filing a return for tax year 2008.

>>get off their @$$ and get my form<< That doesn't sound much like a passive activity.

>>I am not sure what the procedure is to revoke<< Form 8332 can be revoked at any time PRIOR to the effective year, by delivering a new Form 8332 or written statement specifying the year or years of revocation. The custodial parent must continue to attach the revocation in every year to which it applies, and must maintain proof of delivery to the non-custodial parent. This procedure is only a year old. Before that, there was no provision in the law, but following Chief Counsel advice the service used to honor a revocation if the non-custodial parent stopped claiming the child. So this is another possibility for why the lawyer now says the release is illegal. In my opinion this is a situation that should not be driven by the tax effect. The value of a single exemption is pretty unimportant compared to family court proceedings. Since we don't really know the spouse's position, we can't offer specific advice. My general advice would be that there is usually not very much tax advantage in triggering an audit of your own return.

>>it sais "No, you cannot take the credit".....really?<< Yes, really. But you only get to that line if you answer "no" to the question about Social Security numbers. If you can say yes to Social Security number, the worksheet tells you to skip the next couple of lines. In other words, no rebate without SSN unless you are military.

>>I don't see anything in the "fine print" to negate the existing 8332.<< An 8332 might indeed be invalid if what were written on the previous version did not conform to the substance of the updated version, or if it were improperly executed. It could be, for example, that the taxpayer never had an original signature. It would also no longer be valid if the child did not receive more than half of her current year support from one or both parents, which is easy enough to arrange with a little help from grandma. Furthermore, Form 8332 can be revoked, and perhaps that is what the spouse is claiming [Reg. 1.152-4(d)(3)(i)]. I guess your client has a choice. He can give up the exemption, or he can fight over his kid. If he chooses the fight, make sure YOU document the eligibility for your own protection, and don't be surprised if the lawyer knows whatof he speaks.

>>I am in 100% agreement with you on this subject.<< I know you are, Marilyn, and I felt awkward taking those quotes out of their specific context to make my point for other readers. Your previous posts in this thread have been very sympathetic.

>>right at $16,000<< Millions of people earn "right at $16,000," since that is full-time work at eight bucks an hour, a pretty standard wage floor for good but common skills in many fields (including tax preparation). And those jobs don't pay benefits either, for raising young children during the principle child-bearing years. You don't only see them once a year, but every day in clerical, industrial and service positions all around you. The trade schools and community colleges are packed with them trying to get a credential to qualify for take home pay of $1500 a month, the price of a two-bedroom apartment in the city. That's as good as it gets for a LOT of people who are trying to even hang onto that job. MCB's client didn't quit or get fired--UIB is for people who lose their job through no fault of their own. How can you say "they aren't trying hard enough"? Have a heart, folks.

>>asking the client what the payments were for<< Another thing we don't know is WHO sent the 1099. It is not uncommon for "the company" name on a 1099 to be misleading, issued under a parent company or a different legal name. A salesman/employee of a distributor, expecting to be paid on a W-2 with expenses on Form 2106, might get substantial spifs or incentives from the manufacturer or importer. These are properly reported in Box 3 as they are neither employee compensation nor self-employment.

>>Would quit her job as soon as she hit the EIC max<< EIC is highest with income a bit under $16,000. In my observation it is common for workers drawing early Social Security to quit work at about the same level, to avoid cutting into THEIR government checks. How do you feel about that? ************* >>Do you have a link or any more info on the 2009 EIC max?<< 2009 limits are published in Revenue Procedure 2008-66 at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-08-66.pdf.

>>still on hold << Did they ever pick up yet?