DANRVAN

You do not have to scan the code. Once you have it set up, all you have to do is point to the authenticator which you have already pinned. It will display the 6 digit codes for each ATX program. Then click on the 6 digit code and paste it to ATX log-in. Super easy to use!

That works really slick! Once you get it set up it only takes seconds to copy and paste, then you are good to go. No other devices needed. Thank you for the post!!!

And he should be concerned about what rights she might have to his assets / estate.

If the space is used exclusively for business then there is no problem (assuming this is outside of the rented apartment). You need to use it on a regular basis (rather than occasional or incidental) and also prove it was your principal place of business. The IRS has never set forth any criteria for "regular" use. In the case of Green, it was established that he met the regular use requirement by using his home office about 2 hours an evening, five nights a week. However, he was denied a deduction because he failed to prove it was his principal place of business per sec 280(A)(c)(1)(A). The IRS and case law have allowed OIH deductions for both a main home and 2nd home. In Moller taxpayers had an office in both their summer and winter homes; and established both were used on a regular basis; in their case over 40 hours per week regardless of which residence they were at for the season. So it boils down to facts and circumstances.

Agree with that. Disagree with that. The OP implies that cost were minimal or maybe never taken into consideration. But at any rate each tax year stands on its own regardless of how it was handled in the past.

Agree, Refund Statute Expiration Date (RSED) is three years

Your client's situation matches the Dunkin case so close that I would say no. In reversing the tax court decision, the 9th Circuit determined that Dunkin was basically using money from his wages to pay off a debt owed to his ex. And it appears her analysis drives the nail in the coffin for the OP's client. Looks to me like it depends on facts and circumstances; and in your clients case it looks like he is on the hook for taxes. Did he consult an experienced attorney before he made the agreement?

But she does need to keep adequate records and documentation to show the business purpose of her travel and expenses.

I disagree. As I understand it a taxpayer can only have one tax home regardless of the number of businesses. But if you have a cite please share it. Otherwise, I could have a tax home for business A in Seattle and in Miami for business B and deduct all travel between the two? One business must be the principal business based on facts and circumstances. If taxpayer has a separate business from principal business in a separate location away from tax home; travel expense is allowed. It is not that complicated, if she is travelling to Ohio primarily for business purposes then her expenses are deductible either in full or in part; whether reported on two Schedule C's or one.

Two tax homes? I don't think that is possible.

If the trips are primarily for business then treat the rent as business travel as long as it is not lavish per sec 162(a)2. Personal allocation depends on fact and circumstances. For example if she spends 6 to 8 hours a day consulting then don't worry about personal time in the evenings. If on the other hand she spends 2 days consulting and a day of personal then the allocation is 2/3 for business. If the trips are primarily for personal purpose then there is no deduction. OIH is not a consideration in this case; taxpayer is renting an apartment for lodging instead of a motel as I see it. I don't believe self employed taxpayers are allowed to use a per diem for lodging.

I am not clearly following your post Margaret. Is your client renting an apartment which is used 100% for business while away from her tax home; or also using it for personal purposes?

I have a client who is thinking of making a switch from Quickbooks to Ambrook accounting software. Is anybody here familiar with Ambrook? I am not.

Unfortunately case law is not in favor of your client. "Gomas v. United States, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:22-CV-01271, July 17, 2023" held that since taxpayers freely authorized the distributions they were taxable under sec 408(d)(1). In another case, Roberts v. Com, the taxpayers ex-wife forged the authorization of withdrawals from his IRA. Then she received the check and forged his signature and deposited them into a joint checking account that she had sole access to. But in your client's case, it appears she authorized the distributions and had control of them. See RR 2009-9 and RR 2009-20 for details on a qualified investment loss.

From AICPA: An AICPA statement acknowledged the potential effects of the injunction and urged CPAs assisting clients with BOI reporting to be prepared. “Under the injunction, FinCEN is barred from enforcing BOI filing requirements while the case is pending,” the statement said. “Best practices dictate that at a minimum those assisting clients with BOI report filings gather the required information from the clients and are prepared to file the BOI report if the injunction is lifted. While it is unlikely that the injunction will be lifted prior to the final outcome of the proceedings, we advise being prepared in the event that there is a reversal.”

I would check with the attorney for the estate. There might be other factors to consider and state law; like how and when the property was acquired.

If the estate was closed I believe the court would have to approve the payment. I can't imagine the court approving a $10,000 property tax adjustment 2 years after the estate was closed and the property sold.

updated from my previous reply https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prob/division-7/part-4/chapter-3/section-9100/ 2023 California Code Probate Code - PROB DIVISION 7 - ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES OF DECEDENTS PART 4 - CREDITOR CLAIMS CHAPTER 3 - Time for Filing Claims Section 9100. Universal Citation:CA Prob Code § 9100 (2023) 9100. (a) A creditor shall file a claim before expiration of the later of the following times: (1) Four months after the date letters are first issued to a general personal representative. (2) Sixty days after the date notice of administration is mailed or personally delivered to the creditor. Nothing in this paragraph extends the time provided in Section 366.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (b) A reference in another statute to the time for filing a claim means the time provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). (c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to extend or toll any other statute of limitations or to revive a claim that is barred by any statute of limitations. The reference in this subdivision to a “statute of limitations” includes Section 366.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

I find that hard to believe. In Oregon the statute of limitations to file a claim against a closed estate is four months. A quick search shows California the same, I would question the attorney or get a second opinion. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2007/prob/9100-9104.html CA Codes (prob:9100-9104) PROBATE CODE SECTION 9100-9104 9100. (a) A creditor shall file a claim before expiration of the later of the following times: (1) Four months after the date letters are first issued to a general personal representative. (2) Sixty days after the date notice of administration is mailed or personally delivered to the creditor. Nothing in this paragraph extends the time provided in Section 366.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

exactly

If LLC owed the land and LLC elected S corp, then land is owned by S corp. Hopefully they were working with an attorney that can give you some guidance. If S corp owns land then the "rent payments' need to be reclassified. Are the owners paid reasonable salaries?

But technically only in certain cases. Section 2032(a)(1) states that for assets sold within 6 months of death, an election can be made to value on date of disposition. However, paragraph (c) says: "Election must decrease gross estate and estate tax No election may be made under this section with respect to an estate unless such election will decrease— (1)the value of the gross estate, and (2)the sum of the tax imposed by this chapter and the tax imposed by chapter 13 with respect to property includible in the decedent’s gross estate (reduced by credits allowable against such taxes)"

Are you sure the land was transferred to the S-Corps? Who ever helped them make the election must have been aware of the situation. And trigger a taxable gain. At this point probably better to leave it in. While there are some disadvantages to holding real estate in an S-Corp, double taxation is not one of them as in the case of a C-Corp. And in your case not former C-corps subject to BIG. If the property is sold by the S-corp the gain just flows to the shareholders. You will need to do some planning If somewhere down the road the S-corp decides to liquidate or distribute the property.

Not a capital gain.

Gross income of $600 or more, required to file. After a stepped up basis?