kcjenkins

​No, the first one is still not taxed if it was rolled within the 60 days.

​She did not pay it, did she? The rules are very clear on that. Executor or administrator. If you administer a deceased person's estate, your fees are reported on Schedule C or C-EZ if you are one of the following: A professional fiduciary. A nonprofessional fiduciary (personal representative) and both of the following apply. The estate includes an active trade or business in which you actively participate. Your fees are related to the operation of that trade or business. A nonprofessional fiduciary of a single estate that requires extensive managerial activities on your part for a long period of time, provided these activities are enough to be considered a trade or business. If the fees do not meet the above requirements, report them on line 21 of Form 1040.

Rita keeps us all sane. We love her.

Hopefully your warning will help others.

Of course you are welcome here! Heck, one of our mods now uses Drake. We don't mind that, as long as members don't go out of the way to knock ATX. Or Drake, for that matter. You can find honest criticism of pretty much any software, from time to time, but our major goal is to be a community that helps each other, more often with tax issues, occasionally with software and/or hardware issues, and also general friendly support and a shoulder to cry on from time to time.

You can certainly stay on the board, at least now and then. We will miss you if you don't.

Google "tax refund on prepaid debit card" and you get About 260,000 results (0.39 seconds)

Perfect !

Washington, D.C. (April 22, 2015) By Michael Cohn The American Institute of CPAs recommended to the Internal Revenue Service that the de minimis safe harbor threshold amount under the tangible property regulations for small business taxpayers without an applicable financial statement be increased from $500 to $2,500. “The AICPA believes the requirement that a taxpayer have an AFS to use the $5,000 de minimis threshold unfairly discriminates against smaller taxpayers, and recommends an alternative test to allow such taxpayers to use the de minimis rule,” AICPA Tax Executive Committee chair Troy K. Lewis wrote in a letter Tuesday to the IRS. The AICPA recommended that the Treasury Department expand the definition of an approved applicable financial statement, or AFS, to include a reviewed set of financial statements, which are in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services and provide reasonable assurance that there are no material modifications that have been made or should be made for them to be in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework. Lewis explained that outside third parties, such as banks and creditors, often rely on reviewed financial statements to provide them comfort in the financial statements of a company. “We also recommend adjusting the threshold amount on an annual basis for inflation to maintain the fairness and incentive of the intended benefit, and to expand the AFS definition to allow more taxpayers to benefit from the higher $5,000 threshold,” Lewis wrote.

Thanks Judy. We all understand you are both tired and stressed.

True, but remember, the daughter is not Christian's client, so it's not his worry.

On point Sanford v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-158. The plaintiff experienced emotional distress due to sexual harassment which she suffered through her employment. The emotional distress manifested itself in physical symptoms. However, because these physical symptoms were not the basis of the award that the taxpayer received, the award was not excludible from the plaintiff’s income.

The point that should be made is that whether he gets a refund or not, he starts the SOL running, which alone is worth filing.

How about you ask them WHAT they want to see?

Judy, I think you owe Jack an apology.

https://www.facebook.com/The.K9.Instinct/videos/987288104637143/

I agree, John. It is defiantly the withholding that drives the desire of the IRS to insist on classifying as many as possible as 'employees'. With an added bonus for them that 2106 deductions are treated much worse than Sch C expenses, if they are even able to itemize at all.

Clearly, her mistake was the standard "too much information" error. Had it been listed simply as 'office supplies' it would never be questioned. LOL

Just please warn us a day in advance, and we will try to survive it!

My client's workers each had their own ins coverage, that was part of the deal. And I'm not saying it was the ideal solution, just that it was a real attempt to arrive at a fair deal that would let him avoid the payroll hassle. This was an agreement between them both, that they both understood and agreed to. The government still got paid, the worker was still covered by insurance. And #4 is not relevant, because his already overworked wife would have been the one doing the paperwork.

It is almost always better, financially to buy rather than lease, the panels.