Randall

The 8606 aside, the former two separate lines for IRAs and non-IRAs are now combined into one line. If gross and taxable amounts are the same, no problem. But if different, any 1099R marked IRA will throw off the total for line 4a. I just unmark them all as being 'IRA'.

Again. If I unmark the non-IRAs and also unmark the IRA as an IRA, then correct gross amount flows to line 4a and correct taxable amount flows to 4b. And my non-IRA using Simplified Method doesn't show up as a warning. So I figured a work around in ATX but the one IRA 1099R is not marked as an IRA. Does anyone see that as a problem?

Another wrinkle. I used the simplified method for one of my 1099Rs (non IRA). By marking it an IRA in order to have the total gross amount flow to line 4a, I now get a red letter notice that IRAs aren't eligible for the simplified method.

This still seems to be a problem in ATX. I think lIne 4a should be higher than 4b if not all is taxable. If I mark all the 1099R amounts as IRA, it flows to line 4a properly, with 4a higher than 4b. Anyone else still having this problem? Is it ok to mark non-IRA 1099Rs as IRA just to get the amounts correct on 4a and 4b?

I think it is a slam dunk decision. Problems yes, as you said latest update fixed. Buying W7 on new computer is absurd. Hanging on with it on an old computer is ok. Buying new with W7, sheesh. All the techies in the world aren't going to outthink Microsoft.

Win 10. Get the latest.

It doesn't happen all the time.

I'm getting two Schedules A when I print (ATX). One has the numbers and one has all blanks. Anyone else have this happening?

I'm not sure why it was loaded, but I assume it was in the 1120S return 'thinking' the S corp was a partner in a partnership and needed the K-1 input.

Working on a 1120S. On Sch K, clicked in the gray area and went to popup worksheet for 199A entries. In the column for service activities, there was another jump to arrow. When I clicked on it, ATX downloaded the individual 1040 K-1 input sheet into my 1120S return. But it was the K-1 input sheet for 1065, not 1120S. I don't know why I would have this in the 1120S return, even if it was the K-1 input sheet from 1120S. Anyone else experience this?

I didn't know IRS accepts in paper form, both on same page. It's still easier for me to see page two on a page two. And not having to explain to clients. Maybe it's just a mental thing.

I really don't want it. I like to print the forms as they officially are. I explain to the client the new forms and that the lower half is supposed to be blank. I'm still trying to get to know where everything is and what Schedule ties in where. Printing page 1 & 2 on the same page will only confuse me more.

I figured out how ATX is calculating the taxable portion of the repayment. But the 1120S K-1 basis statement will be off from the 1040 basis worksheet. The 1120S is showing the entire amount of the repayment reducing basis and the 1040 is only showing the nontaxable portion as reducing basis. Remaining loan basis is greater on the 1040 worksheet than on the 1120S basis statement. Is this difference something I am going to have to live with? What if they go to someone else in the future or I retire (not too far off). I would like the two to say the same thing.

Probably a good idea. For this one, I inherited it.

Wow, jklcpa. Thanks.

S Corp shareholder paid part of his shareholder loan back. Still has remaining loan basis. The 1120S K-1 basis statement shows the reduced loan basis. Loan basis was restored by profit. On the shareholder 1040 basis worksheet, part of the loan repayment is showing as reportable income. I can't determine why this doesn't match the 1120S basis statement and not show any part as taxable income. I seem to vaguely recall that loan repayment is considered done during the year while profit restores basis at the end of the year. Is this so and why ATX is calculating a part of the loan repayment as taxable? And if so, is there anywhere in ATX, I can see how this is calculated?

This topic is being discussed a lot on the TaxTalk group. There seems to be good reason to consider a rental activity a trade or business even if safe harbor is not met. I received my recent Tax Action Memo from Thomson Reuters today. Trade or Business per 162 was discussed and they referenced a number of cases. Gilford, Fackler, Murtaugh, Estate of Gibney and Legreide where court held a rental real estate activity was a trade or business. Grier, Jackson, Union National Bank of Troy where court held rental real estate activity was not a trade of business. The cases where was not held to be a trade or business had reasons that would not seem to apply to most small rental clients.

Thanks for the clarification. So is it safe to say most rentals with one or two houses would not meet the 162 level. Then they must meet the safe harbor rules. Can any of these small rental clients come up with 250 hours? That's over 20 hours a month, 5 hours a week.

cbslee, are you saying that you consider most of your rentals to be a trade of business regardless of the safe harbor rules? There has been a lot of discussion of the safe harbor rules, but even if someone doesn't meet the safe harbor rules, he may still be treated as a trade or business for purposes of QBI if it is a 162 trade or business. When I look at 162, there's no definition, just expenses that are necessary and ordinary and whatever. Are you saying most rentals would meet the 162 requirement? If so, why bother with safe harbor? And how would we document that we think the rental activity is a 162 trade or business?

I'm looking at Pub 535 2018, dated January 25, 2019. I don't see this on page 2. Are you quoting from a draft? Has it been included in the actual Pub 535? I do see this on page 50, left column under Chapter 12 - Qualified Business Income Deduction. The language in your 2nd part is slightly different.

And I don't think they can be carried over by surviving spouse. I know NOL can't, not sure about capital loss.

I have a similar situation, an LLC, two members, holding land. We never filed a 1065 for several years, then Ky contacted them. Since they were an LLC, Ky wanted that $175 fee every year. So I prepare the 1065 which flows to Ky 765. I told them to pay the property tax themselves so not to flow thru 1065. Land, no depreciation, no loss, no change in basis (at least inside basis).

Ky has it's separate form but the instructions say it accepts the Fed 8879.

I'm still wondering if I put this on 1065 page one or Form 8825. Instructions in 1065 say it's not a rental if it meets one of the exceptions (avg stay 7 days or less). From that, it looks like it goes on 1065 page one. Reg 1.469-1T(e)(3) also words it that it is not considered a rental activity if one of the exceptions apply. So it appears it should be on 1065 page one and Box 1 in Sch K-1. Form 8825 (and also K-1 input for 1040) has a place to mark the property type 3 for vacation and short term rentals. This sort of contradicts itself as to where to report.

Eric, you have got this 199A down pat. Have you been studying this all year long? Thanks for your comments.