rfassett

There are 40 states which have time limits that can result in the termination of welfare benefits. All states have exemptions or extensions. Exemptions usually cover cases where children don't live with their natural parents because of a parent's death or assignment to foster parents and people with medical problems. In many states, individuals who can't find jobs can get extensions. So yeah, there are time limits, but they are without muscle in some states.

Wow - was 1968 even in the current era? Times were a lot different in 1968. Bring the analysis a little closer to current times to make it believable. I admit, I have not done the math, but if I did, I do not believe it would be as simple as you present. I believe you have to take into account all of the parameters such as taxation and earned income tax credit and welfare payments, etc, if you are going to do this analysis.

Forced increases in income simply ratchet all income and expenses upward. Witness increases in minimum wage. Ask anyone that received that increase if they are any more well off than before. The answer is no because all of the increase that the employers had to pay had to be compensated through higher prices. Higher prices and higher taxes ate up all of the increase. IMHO, reducing welfare is the ONLY answer. A recent conversation was witnessed locally where a woman working part time (by choice) at a local grocery store, who receives welfare as does her stay at home husband (by choice) and her adult child living at home (unemployed by choice) and having just got back from a cruise and had just bought a near top of the line refrigerator was heard to say, "you would be surprised at what you can buy when you don't have to spend your money on food". Ya think?

I could see this going either way on audit. One way, as I described above, includes two steps first a distribution to the shareholders followed by a subsequent gift to the son. Conversely, the asset could have gone directly to the son. Look for the Service to argue whichever way generates more tax. I know of no way to accomplish what you desire without paying the tax. Even asking the lawyer to reverse the transaction in wrought with danger. The Service could argue that this was an effort to evade tax in the worst case scenario or allow it to happen as, again, two separate transactions - one where the transaction incurring the tax takes place and a second transferring the asset back to the corp at FMV - so the tax was paid but the son ends up without the property. Not a likely scenario, but it could happen. You have here a text book example of why real estate should not be held in a corporation. Even if the attorney successfully reverses the transaction and son ends up eventually inheriting the S-Corp, the step up in basis at that point will apply to the shares of stock in the S-Corp but not the assets inside the S-Corp. I know I am not being much help to you, but sometimes there is not much that can be done. The planning ship on this transaction has sailed. You are left with reporting the compliance part of the transaction.

"and they are reporting the gift on their gift tax return" A corporation would not file a gift tax return nor would a corporation be able to gift to a non-charitable organization. If the asset went right from the corporation to the son, the son would pick up income at FMV and the corp would record expense for whatever the payment was being made. It does not sound to me that the latter was the desire. Broken down into its simplest element, the result I previously posted is the most likely - given what we know.

If the asset was titled in the Corp name, then it is a distribution to the shareholders at FMV with gain being recognized by the corp and consequently the shareholders on a pass through basis. Basis in hands of the donee is basis in the hands of the shareholders which would be, in this case, FMV. Here is a good summary: http://www.borelassociates.com/topics/Distributing_Property_to_S_Corp_Shareholders.pdf

Same here. I was a little surprised they even left it an option.

Did you do the survey? Entering your name and account number is optional - not for me. I want them to know whose back they are seeing as I walk away. I installed a new system (network and workstations) a week ago. ATX 2012 and FAM are my only issues of all of the software installed. If I do not install FAM, ATX runs fine. If I install FAM, ATX crashes and FAM does not open. I followed the installation instructions to the "t". Sometime next week, I will call support and see how long it takes them to figure it out. The survey could not have been better timed. In spite of all of the rhetoric, they still do not have the most basic things fixed.

why ATX management took a program so functional and basically loved (or at least liked by all users) and turned into the 2012 abomination. I am having more issues with the software now than I had during tax season. In the past two days I have prepared three returns and all three crashed the program during the print. The first was a corp and the second and third basically nothing 1040's. Tomorrow my new system gets installed and within 24 hours my new software. It is not going to happen soon enough. This last return crashed the program four times before I could get a good print. I never ever would have believed that I would be excited to leave ATX.

Sorry - speed reading has never been my forte. I completely missed the MFS for 2010 and 11. So I would say you are back to surrendering any provable assets of the estate. Since no probate seems to have taken place you are back to proving whatever assets were titled in his name were used for his final expenses. To the extend that can be done and there are no assets available, then his account would be determined uncollectible by the IRS and it is not her concern. To the extent the asset value exceeded final expenses, I believe she would have to turn those funds over to the IRS - to the extent of his debt.

Yes I have - on more than one occasion.

Innocent spouse relief is worth a shot.

Speaking of trees come tumbling down, my wife and I live in an older residential area on a tree lined brick street. Our house was built in 1904. Our media room is on the second floor in the back of the house. Friday after work, we went and picked up a pizza and brought it home to eat while we watched a little TV. I was about half way into my second piece of pizza when we heard this this sssshhhhooooossshhhhh thump and the power went out. We look at each other and simultaneously said "what was that". I headed down the steps and passed my German Shepherd coming up the steps and I thought "this can't be good". Got to the bottom of the steps and looked out the front door and one of our 45 foot oak trees was laying in front of the house. We had gutter damage to gutters that were installed a week earlier and a hand rail on the front steps got wrecked. But that was it. Upon inspection, we found that the bottom 12 inches of the tree was rotted. The rest of the tree was very healthy. There was no other impetus to that tree falling - no wind, no rain, nothing. If that tree fell two feet in either direction, a tremendous amount of damage would have resulted. Thirty seconds before the tree fell, an elderly gentleman and his dog had passed in front of the tree. Ten minutes before, Rebecca and I had just passed in front of the tree coming into the house. An hour earlier, a young mother, her baby and a friend were standing right where that tree came down. Just a little change in timing would have created a completely different ending to this story. Have I mentioned lately that God is good?

The deciding issue for me was "yes, 2013 will work fine on a network"; "no, 2013 will not work on a network", and back and forth and back and forth. I have no desire to re-visit 2012. Granted, I did not have the issues that some had, but I think that was just the luck of the draw and a lot more hours. That said, a 90 hour per week tax season turned out to be a 112 hour per week tax season mostly due to the ATX hampering of productivity. I have been given no reason to believe that ATX has solved that problem for the network environment. I have previously stated, and will state again, anyone running a stand alone system should have a very good product in ATX for 2013. I can not say the same for those running a network. Thus and therefore, I saddled my horse, did my due diligence and will soon ride into the sunset.

Rich - I am upgrading my entire computing system, server with server 2008 and workstations with win 7 (my geek guy doesn't even like to sell win 8). I have moved on from ATX. Just way too much uncertainty and double talk coming from the corporate offices for my liking. I am going to be using Pro System fx for the foreseeable future.

Michael - I just received a canned email from Jason Marx which sounds like it is in response to your comments. But the gist of the email was blah, blah, blah. It sounds like it was an attempt to "get something out there" - anything - just get something out there. It is long on promise and short on substance. Where have I seen that before? Anyway, just thought I would let you know. It does not matter one way or the other to me - I have moved on.

Very funny!!!

Here, here! Now that said, I have a tendency to be somewhat. OK, blatantly obvious from a religious perspective with some of my posts. If I have offended anyone, I would like to say I am sorry, but I can't. Because you see, there is no separation in MY life between religious and not religious. It is who I am. And who I will always be. Moderate if you must for the good of the order. But politics is another story all together. I have read some of the posts and find them to be very disturbing. Common sense, decency and respect are lost, not just in this forum, but in the general society in which we live. Please moderate! And thank you for stepping up!

It might be time for educating the client. I would tell him that you need to see prior year corp returns before you can advise whether to make the S election. But the direct answer to the question on the table is that S-Corp net income, with permitted adjustments, is taxed ratably on the shareholders individual tax return in the year in which the S-Corp year ends (usually Dec unless granted permission for other by the IRS). The amount of cash (profits) left in the business or taken out of the business has nothing to do with the amount of income subject to tax.

I will be paying more for ProSystems fx, but it was time. I will miss the old ATX but not the new, although I do believe that those that are running stand alone systems with the recommended hardware and operating system will have a GREAT product in ATX in 2013 and beyond. In fact, one that I would not squabble over price about. It is already a great price for a great product. Good luck!

Rich, at the risk of angering the notices gods, I have to say that i have not yet seen any of those notices. In fact, I am thinking the only 2012 notice I have received so far was the mis-calculation of taxable social security benefits that slipped through when that was an issue in the software.

Doesn't matter to me because we each have to make our own decisions and live with them, but I encourage you to do the math. $20,000 for 3,000 returns? That is less than $7 per return. Raise the fee at least $10 accross the board and now you have not only paid for Pro System fx, you have made some additional money besides. Just sayin'.

Jack - I appreciate you. You are pushing me away from ATX. I keep thinking I might be making a mistake by leaving, but you are helping me accept it. I am about 18 hours away from making a final decision to go to CCH Axcess Pro System fx.

I run a domain network and all workstations are running XP. Although slow, I had no MAJOR problems for 2012. I brought in a 7 machine about the third week of March and it would not even think of opening ATX as long as the system even thought one of the XP's might have it open. Ended up using the 7 machine as a printer. I would send my return print to the document manager, which I had open on the 7 and print the return from there. That did free up recources on the XPs so we could be more productive there, but we should not have to do that. 2012 was a very major blunder and it bothers me a great deal that ATX fails to accept that.

These are the very things that are making me so uneasy with ATX. We keep getting conflicting information from different sources within the company and it is extremely unsettling. I believe in the old adage, "say what you mean and mean what you say". I sense ATX folks are talking out of both sides of their mouths which would indicate that NOBODY really knows what 2013 will bring. I have already experience one year like that and am not prepared to do it again. I have taken on the task of updating my hardware system so the server is running 2008 and all of the workstations 7, but with the sense of being out of control that ATX portrays STILL, I just can not see me spending another year with them. I am in series discussions with ProSystem fx (yes, another CCH product but one that seems to have it together) and may just be using their Axcess program next year.