Gail in Virginia

I have a client with an IRA partially invested in a limited partnership. In addition to the K-1, he received a Canadian form T5013 showing 575 CAD income from the limited partnership. Do I have to file a Canadian return and report this, or does the fact that it is an IRA affect the taxation of a non-resident?

Lion, I have never had an IRA that had to file a return, nor do most of my IRA's have a plan administrator that I am aware of. That is the type of title I am used to seeing with qualified plans, not with self-directed IRA accounts at a brokerage.

For some reason, this year a lot of my customers are receiving K-1's on their IRA account. This must be the latest hot investment. I have one that has income reported in box 20 as Unrelated Business Taxable Income. Does this have any affect on their taxes, or since it is in an IRA can I ignore it? This same K-1 has sent a Canadian form T5013 showing 575 CAD income from the limited partnership. Do I have to file a Canadian return and report this, or does the fact that it is an IRA affect the taxation of a non-resident? Please help someone - I am looking for answers but this is too late in the season for me to think straight about something as unusual as this (at least in my practice.)

Is the house still being offered for rent? I would be inclined, depending on facts and circumstances, to either put the interest on the sched. E with the rental income,OR to use Sched A as investment interest. I don't think that it would go on Sched C unless the rental income also went on Sched C.

Did the son save all of his money and live on what the father provided? That is one way the father could provide over 1/2 the son's support. The other way, of course, is if the father actually made more in tips than the income he is reporting as a cab driver- but I am sure that is not the case here. Perhaps the son gave his money away to charity.... :dunno:

Was his son a full-time student for at least 5 months of the year? And did he provide over half of his son's support?

I was not aware that the new law required doctors to only participate in the government sponsored health care program. If that were the case, I don't think that doctors who feared dealing with insurance under the new requirements would be going into concierge-type practices. Yes, everyone will now be required to have insurance or pay a penalty; this was part of the republican sponsored bill during Clinton's administration and is not something new. The fact that you have insurance does not require you to submit a claim. And I am glad that you can afford to pay for all of your care out of pocket; not everyone is so lucky. In this area, most patients who pay cash wind up paying more because the insurance companies have negotiated lower payments for their insureds and any overhead is absorbed by the rest of the practice. I would agree that this is not a complete or even optimum solution, but it is a start. Perhaps it can be amended into something everyone can live with, but only if we address what the law actually says and does.

The rich uncle would probably not foreclose on the property, nor would he issue a 1099-A or 1099-C for the debts. Judging from the posts on this board the bank is likely to issue those forms incorrectly, but the will probably issue at least one of them if the loan goes into foreclosure. And I am sure that the bank considers that your client owes them the money they paid our for taxes and/or insurance. I would be comfortable with deducting this the same as if it were paid by credit card.

My problem with this argument is that I really don't see much difference between the "government" telling you what doctor you can see, what procedures the doctor can perform for you, and how much the doctor will have to accept in payment and my insurance company telling them the same things. And if the insurance is employer-provided, then under ERISA I have almost no recourse if they choose to delay or deny treatment. Even if not employer provided it can be difficult to change an insurance company's decision. At least with this new law there are procedures for arbitration. Massachusetts is not the only state losing specialists and doctors. I believe West Virginia is having the same problem because their malpractice premiums have become so high. I am not familiar enough with Massachusetts' plan to know if there are any significant differences, nor do I know how the GAO arrived at its figures for the cost and revenue impacts of this bill. Many of the provisions do not take place until 2014, so I am sure that there will be changes made before that date. But instead of taking sides and calling names, can't our elected "leaders" work together to make this better instead of the current attitude that Obama=bad, no matter what the proposal? I would love to see an election where ideas are criticized based on their merits rather than using loaded terms to try to make everything the opposition, whoever they may be, sound like it came from the devil himself. We currently have the situation where Republicans are calling the mandating of insurance for everyone an unconstitutional invasion of the individual's or the state's rights. And yet prior proposals from Republicans contained the same requirement. The whole manner of discourse is enough to make you want to move to a deserted island with no government at all.

One of the Clergy worksheets in ATX calculates this information for you, and causes it to flow to the appropriate places. I believe this worksheet is also not e-file-able until April1, but I could be mistaken on that point.

That does clear it up. Thanks! I am so glad there are people like you who understand these things and are willing to take the time to explain them to people like me! :)

July 19 must be a great day to be born; that is my mother's birthday!

Yes, I am one of the silent minority that supports something being done about health care in this country. Do I think that the bill that just passed is THE answer? No, but at least now the question is being asked. I hope that passing this legislation will result in a better discussion of the issues, but so far everything that I have seen is just passionate statements of partisan politics. The poorest people in this country, who don't (or won't) work at all are covered by Medicaid. But the people who are struggling just above poverty in jobs where insurance is not a benefit are the ones who will benefit from the subsidies in this bill. I would much rather help those who are at least trying to support themselves to be able to make it on what they earn than continue to bypass them when it comes to assistance for their health care. I just wish that facts could be reported without using loaded terms like "death panel" for a system to provide end of life counseling, and telling all my small employers that they will be forced to pay for health insurance for all of their employees (all 3 of them) when this bill only applies to employers who have 50 or more employees. This doesn't have to be the first step to socialized medicine, but if people in both parties aren't willing to work together, it might wind up being that.

Apparently they don't. I could not see the picture until I used F5 to refresh. Now I can see what a nice looking couple they are! And the picture that I saw on your member page actually had 4 people in it. I will have to go look and see if the refresh changed it! :spaz:

I see now. Interesting.

I thought that Lion was trying to change the avatar that shows up beside each post and that still seems to be Alex playing the flute. The picture on her member page has changed.

That's wonderful, Lion. I hope they will be very happy, and that you and your future daughter-in-law will have a great relationship!

:bday:

If the diocese treats it as housing allowance it does not need to be included in the w-2 income, but that does not exempt it from SE tax as I understand clergy taxes. But there are some people on this board with more experience in that than I have, so hopefully one of them will also respond.

But remember, even if they go back to court and she signs an 8332 listing all the applicable years between now and when the child is 24, she can turn around and repudiate those future years later.

:bday:

:bday:

But you will have to determine the fair rental value of the church provided housing somehow. For that to be excluded from his income I think the church has to actually state an amount as housing allowance. This is then added to his income for SE tax. Surely the priest knows how much his housing allowance is, or can find out from someone at the church.

I don't think they can get they 250 from their tax returns. Were they working last year? If they did not receive the 250 from SS, they could be entitled to the full making work pay credit on their return but I don't think they get the 250 unless they already have it.

As far as I could tell from some quick research on yahoo finance, John Hancock demutualized and then later merged with MFC (Manulife). I don't personally know anything about it. Hope this helps.