RitaB

My biggest complaint with ATX was that I couldn't enter a zero on Form 8606 Line 19 for a client with a ROTH distribution Code J.  He had a qualified distribution that included earnings.  Code Q would have been appropriate, but since it wasn't Code Q,  blah, blah, blah.  You can print any positive or negative integer in that blue box but not a zero.  Sometimes you want to see a zero in a box.  My client did.  So I wound up cutting a "zero" out with scissors and gluing it in the box.  Ran a copy for the client.  Sure did.  ATX said IRS would understand that a blank box meant zero.  They have more confidence in the mind reading ability of IRS than I do.  We'll see.

Similar problem with Form 8962, column f.  I could not create the e-file allocating 0% of APTC on a return.  I had to use 1%. 

I guess you could say I had zero problems.  Arr.  Arr.

So yesterday afternoon I called @Possi to see if they survived, and they were DRINKING AND HAVING MASSAGES.  Wait, what?  I thought I was your best friend, not Cynthia.  I see how it is.

Then I went home, had five little candy bars, and whoever named them "Fun Size" clearly did not understand fun.

Then I hiked around the farm smiling and enjoying the sun, thankful for a good season.  Discovered a new baby calf, which is always like Christmas morning to me. 

Thanks to all of y'all for everything you do for me.  And everybody please stick around because I need you all year. 

17 minutes ago, BLACK BART said:

 I've been trying to remember who it was who posted here (pre-Obamacare) that he/she wasn't worried about the health insurance dealie coming up 'cause they'd just plug it into the computer and everything would fall into place. 

3 minutes ago, BulldogTom said:

Rita, do you include the LLC return with the personal return, or do you create another file?   So for example, do you open just one return in ATX and have the 1040 and the TN FAE 170 in that same ATX return? 

This just looks really weird to me to have a 1040, CA 540 and a CA 568 in the same return in ATX.   Am I doing this right?

Thanks

Tom
Modesto, CA

Yes, I add the TN FAE to the personal return. 

I have a lot of trouble with ATX getting the right info to the TN FAE 170 from the federal on my SMLLCs.  Even if the box is checked at top of schedule, "Hey, look at me, I'm an LLC," if there is another non-LLC Sch C or Sch E in the return, ATX wants to send everything on them to the TN return, too.  Also, I have to do a lot of finagling getting the business name and EIN to the TN return.  Program enters couple's names and a SSN on the TN return.  It takes longer than it should.  Don't know if I am not holding my teeth right or what, but I'm blaming ATX. 

"This is the worst" with a smile on our faces.  Yes.  Hahahaha, oh my, that's me.   And what is it with people doing tax planning for 2018 this week??  It happens every year.  Every.  Single.  Year. 

And by May 1, I memorialize everything:  Do a fake "planning return," send a copy of it with Forms 1040-ES, and this time next year, they will still be completely shocked that they owe. 

"If I sell my rental, what is that going to do to me next year?"

1 hour ago, Abby Normal said:

We usually hold broker statement clients to about now, but this guy was in FL and just got back to a stack of mail. But he's one of my longest, best clients and he absolutely loves me... and his wife just died.... so I didn't bill him for a redo.

Aaaaannnnnd, that's why you were awarded the first-ever Tax Stud Star!  And, yes, when they love us it goes a long way. 

Hey, more tax return to do!  Ok by me.  No free lunches either.

12 minutes ago, RitaB said:

 

 

... my entire illustrious career.   ( /s)

...Maybe the lawmakers knew mistakes would be made in applying for the subsidy.  H*ll if I know, but I have never felt more like Loophole Lefty,

    and I'd just as soon not.  (not /s)

 

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 6:32 PM, RitaB said:

Inclusive?  Can it be zero and 100?   I have a mom and a kid sharing a policy.  Kid not a dependent.  Parents are over 400% of poverty level as early retirees.  There is no IRA happening.  And what about the program screaming at me to discard the 8962 for the parents since they are over 400% on line 5?  Is the absence of 8962 gonna make my life [even more] miserable [because of this law] in a couple months when IRS sends letter to parents?

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 5:25 PM, RitaB said:

I see from the Instructions for Form 8962 that 0% and 100% are allowed...If I can’t get ATX to create the e-file, I think it might be best to paper file parent's return. Does Drake allow the Form 8962 if Line 5 exceeds 400%? 

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 6:50 PM, jklcpa said:

I don't have a return currently that I could test on and haven't had your situation to deal with. The programs have to allow the form to be filed when it exceeds the 400% because it's required to file if they get a 1095A and that's the only way you can calculate and report the payback.

 

Ok, I think I've managed to get these folks' returns done and will be able to e-file both.  I hope this post will help someone down the road, because this is the most frustrated I've ever felt reading directions in my entire illustrious career.  I had to keep telling myself there is a solution, keep going.

I had to allocate something more than 0% in the parents' Form 8962, lines 12 - 23, column f, because ATX does not recognize zero as a number.   (Not sure if that's ATX's fault, but zero is a number.)  So I allocated 1% of APTC to parents and 99% to kid. The other columns on 12 - 23 on the parents' form are blank because their MAGI exceeds four times the poverty level. 

It took me a very long while to figure out that on line 30, e, f, and g are the allocations for the return you are working on, NOT the allocations for the return of the person whose SSN you just entered in 30 b.  I stumbled onto that one because of the Joe and Alice example on page 18 of the instructions for Form 8962.  I don't know how else I would have known that because ATX does not use the percentages; you have to manually figure your numbers for 12 - 23.

This loophole seems too bad to be true, and the taxpayers paid BlueCross and BlueShield of TN $17,000 for these folks' policy that we would not have if my clients had known that the kid was no longer a dependent.  It is a great consolation to me to know that these people are just oblivious - they were not trying to game the system, and didn't even use the insurance.  They only signed up for it because they were terrified of the SRP. 

On second thought, that may be exactly why they are allowed to allocate as they wish.  Maybe the lawmakers knew mistakes would be made in applying for the subsidy.  H*ll if I know, but I have never felt more like Loophole Lefty, and I'd just as soon not.

Dadgummed 426,000 in sales proceeds on 24 short term transactions with a whopping $926 collective gain.   There's that advisory fee on page 23.

6 minutes ago, rfassett said:

Don't be so hard on yourself - it was just another piece of paper.  It is a wonder that we all have systems in place that prevents this type thing happening on a regular basis.  But I do understand your feelings - that punch in the gut feeling when you find you cannot blame the client for not giving you the info.  But alas, you, me and the rest of us, are just mere humans - irrespective of what some of our clients think of us.

This.  It's a piece of paper.  We've all done it.  I can't wait to see what I did this season.

48 minutes ago, Richcpaman said:

All of the Kids SS is going to support the kids, plus, Mom and Grandmom, since they don't make enough for themselves. 

Do not believe that the Father was ever married to the Mom.

I see Single for the Mom.  But she could still claim EIC on the boys at that point?  That is like, wow...

And yes, there are alarm bells at the IRS.  Mainly for lunch hour...

Rich 

I believe you have it exactly right, and yes, it's a big wow, and I bet you remember that Eagles' song "Lunch Will Keep Us Alive". 

Bacon.  We need a bacon per diem.

5 minutes ago, jklcpa said:

D@mn

We have straight up corrupted you.

31 minutes ago, Richcpaman said:

Father dies in Feb 2017.  Probably drug related...

 

I really dislike EIC returns.  And if she qualifies, great, but it is not clear cut, and this one will ring alarm bells when it arrives.

Oh, were Mom and Father still married?  Then, MFJ might be the way to go.  I assumed they were divorced.

I also hate EIC returns, but I don't think there are any alarm bells at IRS. 

If a kid provided over half his own support, Mom cannot claim the dependency exemption for the kid.

If the Mom can claim a kid, and paid over 1/2 the expenses of maintaining the residence, she can use the HOH status.

There is no support test for EIC, so Mom can "use" (for lack of a better word) the kids for EIC.

I feel like there's probably no HOH (but she can complete Worksheet 1 in Pub 501 and see) or dependency exemption for Mom.  But the windfall EIC, yes. 

https://www.irs.gov/publications/p501#en_US_2017_publink1000220797

12 hours ago, NECPA in NEBRASKA said:

 

I don't have the land that Rita does, but I am seriously considering a wood chipper and going all Fargo on some people .

You can dig to China with a spoon.

20 hours ago, Possi said:

The S Corp was closed, and the new EIN is for the LLC.

She's a doctor, not a tax pro.

Poor thing.

You know the difference between engineers and accountants?

Accountants know they're not engineers.

My BFF @Possi and I met on TheTaxBook site, and have all but left there because of the abrasive personalities of some.   Can't tell you how much we both enjoy the company here. 

Also, every time we want to kill someone we call one another and vent.  Half the time we can't even hear what the other is saying because we're laughing so hard.  Snorting actually. 

"Laughter does good, like medicine..."

2 minutes ago, Gail in Virginia said:

I guess that eliminates the need for the backhoe and back 40.

We are nothing if not problem solvers.

1 hour ago, JJStephens said:

 Actually, come to think of it, I didn't fire her. I was going to but she passed away before I had the chance to. This one is getting pretty close to that threshold for me.

I knew there was somebody besides me with a backhoe and back 40. 

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 3:09 PM, Abby Normal said:

I hope Tom and Rita got a point for vulgarity in this thread.

It's not vulgarity if it's in the ACA Forum. 

22 hours ago, jklcpa said:

 

Yes, it can be 0 and 100.  So the kid is not part of the "tax family" and therefore the mom may choose to allocate all, some or none of each month's figures from the 1095-A.  Because they are over the 400% FPV, they aren't an applicable taxpayer for the PTC (obviously) and will have the repayment, not capped.  In that case, why not allocate 100% of all amounts to the kid?

Does checking the box on line 9 of the parents 8962 make your computer stop screaming?

I see from the Instructions for Form 8962 that 0% and 100% are allowed.  TheTaxbook should not use the word “between” as that means greater than zero and less than 100.  Or at least I think it did in the 90s when I was whacking Algebra students’ knuckles over things like that. I wish I could find an example of my situation; I would feel better. I realize loopholes are unfair by definition, but I feel like this is a terrible disservice to my other clients who projected their income accurately and thus did not qualify for APTC. 

I’m not at work, but I’m sure I had the Box on Line 9 checked. On the other hand, and in the words of a great orator: Tax season has fried me good and proper. 

If I can’t get ATX to create the e-file, I think it might be best to paper file parent's return. Does Drake allow the Form 8962 if Line 5 exceeds 400%? 

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 7:05 PM, Catherine said:

The Tax Book says:  "The allocation percentage can be any amount between zero and 100% that is agreed upon by each taxpayer.

Inclusive?  Can it be zero and 100?   I have a mom and a kid sharing a policy.  Kid not a dependent.  Parents are over 400% of poverty level as early retirees.  There is no IRA happening.  And what about the program screaming at me to discard the 8962 for the parents since they are over 400% on line 5?  Is the absence of 8962 gonna make my life [even more] miserable [because of this law] in a couple months when IRS sends letter to parents?