Gail in Virginia

I remember how much I hated the change from MS-DOS to Windows. It took me forever to get used to Icons instead of .bat files. For a long time, I would go into the DOS emulator instead of actually using Windows. Now I would not want to go back even if I could. Sooner or later, I will get on board for touch screen pc's.

One way to show you are serious about changing domicile is to change driver's license, car registrations, and voter registration. If they change their minds in a few years, those things can be changed back but are easier to "prove" since there is no state return for FL than changing doctors, etc.

I think that you could conceivably make an election to report savings bond interest on the mother's final return as opposed to the income being in the estate return, assuming she was a cash basis taxpayer and had not been reporting the interest all along. From Publication 559: If the bonds transferred because of death were owned by a cash method taxpayer who chose not to report the interest each year and had purchased the bonds entirely with personal funds, interest earned before death must be reported in one of the following ways. The person (executor, administrator, etc.) who is required to file the decedent's final income tax return can elect to include all of the interest earned on the bonds before the decedent's death on the return. The transferee (estate or beneficiary) then includes only the interest earned after the date of death on its return. If the election in (1), above, was not made, the interest earned to the date of death is income in respect of the decedent and is not included on the decedent's final return. In this case, all of the interest earned before and after the decedent's death is income to the transferee (estate or beneficiary). A transferee who uses the cash method of accounting and who has chosen not to report the interest annually may defer reporting any of it as income until the bonds are either cashed or reach the date of maturity, whichever is earlier. In the year the interest is reported, the transferee may claim a deduction for any federal estate tax paid that arose because of the part of interest (if any) included in the decedent's estate. I hope that helps.

​Actually, I think that is the ultimate goal - to have everything reported to the IRS, no deductions allowed because we have gone to a fair tax system, and the IRS will just bill you if the withholding doesn't match what you owe. I am not holding my breath for that to happen, but that is what some people are hoping for.

You make some very good points that I had not considered, Michael. i usually do a 1065 for partners, even husband and wife partners, just because that is correct. Now I have even more reasons to do that.

It does sometimes seem like brokerages and PTP's have a spy at the IRS that tells them as soon as the return has been filed and accepted so they can then send either this unexpected K1 or a corrected 1099. Must be some kind of joke that I don't understand. I ain't laughing.

Actually, I have a client that had one that was a registered tax shelter with low income housing credit . They saved a bundle in taxes over the years, and I think now they are actually getting a small amount of income from it. That is the only one I have ever seen that I thought was worth the trouble, and I think that the same situation now would not lead to the same results due to the changes in the tax laws. But it has given me a lot of respect for the investment adviser that client uses.

I don't use ATX, so I can't be sure. You said you completed Sch. I. Did you complete Part I and Part IV? Would it be at all helpful on Part III to show "none" as the type of grant or assistance to individuals and 0 as the number of recipients and amount? I don't really know what you need to do that you have not done. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am amazed at how quickly Eric manages to fix even minor glitches once we mention them. We are so fortunate to have him running this board for us! Kudos, Eric!

​But I think that if you paid the premiums for a disability policy it would not be reported on a 1099R because it would not be considered taxable income. And of course, large companies never make mistakes on the tax reporting of insurance proceeds. /s

Eric, I don't care one way or the other about the circular images, but it fits your fibonacci sequence spiral rather well, don't you think?

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. It is so good to be back home.

And maybe a nice frozen margarita, while I am drifting in the pool with my teddy bear in the sun. *sigh*

Some of the HRB offices are company stores, but many are franchises. And just like ALL preparers, they have all kinds of people running the stores and preparing the returns. I started out working for HRB, at a franchise owned by my mother, a long, long time ago. She sold the franchise and then later went back into business and i am back to working for her. While she owned it, the local franchise was (IMO) very well run and the preparers were excellent. Many of them have gone on to go into business for themselves. I don't have as much experience with HRB now, and I have heard from others in different areas that it is not the company to work for that it used to be, and that they therefore don't attract the same level of employee that they used to. It is still one of the most common places for preparers to get their start. And we all had to start somewhere.

Good for you! I hope you have a great retirement, and stay in touch!

Interesting article excerpted from The New York Times in The Week about where college tuition money is going and why colleges need to raise tuition so much points to the increase in the number of administrators. From 1993 to 2009, the number of administrators at colleges increased by 60 per cent. At California Polytechnic University, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 over three decades - a 221 per cent increase. The article does not mention how much other areas grew - student body, number of professors, etc. The article also points out that some administrators are making six- and even seven- figure salaries now. From the attitude expressed towards those administrators in your posts, you are not getting your money's worth.

I thought that it was a little nutty myself.

But if the charge is based not on the amount of refund, but the amount of EIC claimed regardless of whether that results in a refund, could that not be a fee based on risk assumed? After all, with the due diligence requirements it seems to me that EITC is one of the riskier areas of tax practice and the more EITC claimed, the larger the risk of sizable penalties. This is not my pricing model, but it makes sense to me in a way.

As long as it is after April 15, and we know that you will eventually get the forum back up for us, we will be fine. As someone mentioned, we might have withdrawal symptoms, but all will be well once we get our next "fix."

Our pricing model is almost exactly the same as Tom's, right down to the price that our returns start at. We do offer children's returns at about half the price of what we would charge if the return did not come in with the parent. I do that mainly to encourage them to let us file the child's return so we can be sure they don't claim themselves.

I am still laughing at the "actively participates" part of Pacun's post.

Maybe a dumb suggestion - but you do have the taxpayer's date of birth in correctly so the program knows that he is over 59 1/2?

I always wonder when someone says they have never been audited exactly what they mean by that. I have never had a tax return that I prepared "audited" I'm the sense that I had face to face contact with a representative of the IRS. I gave had correspondence audits for various reasons that required me to submit copies of documents used, or teach some one at the IRS how to properly follow regulations. And from what I understand, a full blown face to face audit does not mean the preparer has done anything wrong necessarily. It might mean the taxpayer gave them bad information for whatever reason, to it might just mean that they got lucky. So I never have understood thus tendency to brag about never being audited. Maybe they have never done a complex return?

But do you have an advertising deal with the phone company?

Apparently, the depreciable assets were part of the gift and should have been included in the 1.3 million value at their current adjusted basis (I think.) Which would make their basis in the hands of the donees the same as the basis was in the hands of the donor, and no gain or loss would be recognized on the transfer. But no guarantee is given with the answer - it is APRIL the 12TH!