kcjenkins

Should be box 11 at the very top of the Sch E

I had ONE UPS guy who kept ALL of his paystubs, and ALL of his paperwork on the ESPP. [Guess why he was one of my favorite clients?] I found that, although the W-2s did not indicate it, all of the discount that the shares were purchased for was included in his wages, so the whole thing was LTCG.

https://fbcdn-video-c-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xat1/v/t42.1790-2/11060432_951703181531257_1712241889_n.webm?oh=1a347e3b3669481d9b239d90f4fc76cf&oe=5515AEF3&__gda__=1427485107_200673da5209487299655cb575775f9d

Sorry, but just because others do it wrong does not create an exception. Each state has it's own rules for how much you can earn before you have to file, but if you earn enough in any state that has an income tax, you have to file if you want to stay legal.

It is up to the client to ask for them to withhold more, if needed. Or to make estimated payments, if they prefer.

An old dog teaches a pup........... http://i.imgur.com/QblQ8cO.webm

Pacun, it is not that your cite was wrong, rather you were reading it wrong. the key part you ignored is the very start. "Taxpayers, who were married during a taxable year and filed a joint return for that year," Giogis was asking about a couple who were NOT EVER MARRIED. Thus you are not 'electing' between two legal options, you are correcting a filing status they were never entitled to use.

Look on the school's website and see what they say about 'incomplete' classes.

What makes you assume they "think" ?

Hard call. Since the school did not drop her, she technically qualifies, but if she's not going to complete the classes, I don't think I would take it, because I think the school will drop her soon, retroactively, if she does not act soon.

Oh my gosh, this one should be labeled "Laugh of the Day" !!!!

Made me think of this, for some reason......................

Actually, the Surface Pro 3 is more a tablet-like computer.

https://www.ftb.ca.gov/law/legis/15_16bills/AB99_010815_021815.pdf It was extended through 2013. Last year it happened in June. Now there is a bill to extend it again. https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB99/2015 In other words, it's still not passed, so if the amount is significant, EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND.

Now that's a very smart husband. Recommend you keep him!

Yes, that's true for all of us.

Yes, in CA mom gets 100% step up as of dad's DOD. So that simplifies things a lot. 2008 basis should be simple enough. If son's name was just added as a convenience, not a gift, as it sounds, that should not be a factor. Is son the sole heir?

I agree, the 48009 that is net of the amount never deducted is what was both allowed and allowable.

Absolutely right. You know that those impatient clients have plenty of reasons for any delays on their part. If they think you are somehow immune to all ailments just inform them otherwise.

What kind of services, Terry? Normal 'rental' activities like managing, repairing, renting, are not the sort of things that the IRS considers 'services'. I think what you have sounds like a classic 'joint venture'. If you materially participate in the daily operations of the rental properties, then the IRS will treat you like a business. Material participation requires your involvement in the management of the properties or the frequent provision of services to tenants, such as daily cleaning of apartments or changing of linens. However, if you only provide utility and trash collection services, this is a passive activity. IRC Section 7701(a)(2) provides that the term “partnership” includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on, and which is not, within the meaning of this title, a trust or estate or a corporation; and the term “partner” includes a member in such a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or organization. Whether a joint venture is a separate entity for federal tax purposes is a question of federal law. Treasury Regulation Section 301.7701-1 prescribes the classification of various organizations for federal tax purposes. Whether an organization is an entity separate from its owners for federal tax purposes is a matter of federal tax law and does not depend on whether the organization is recognized as an entity under local law. In addition, certain joint undertakings give rise to entities for federal tax purposes. A joint venture or other contractual arrangement may create a separate entity for federal tax purposes if the participants carry on a trade, business, financial operation, or venture and divide the profits. For example, a separate entity exists for federal tax purposes if co-owners of an apartment building lease space and in addition provide services to the occupants either directly or through an agent. Nevertheless, a joint undertaking merely to share expenses does not create a separate entity for federal tax purposes. For example, mere co-ownership of property that is maintained, kept in repair, and rented or leased does not constitute a separate entity for federal tax purposes. For example, if an individual owner, or tenants in common, of farm property lease it to a farmer for a cash rental or a share of the crops, they do not necessarily create a separate entity for federal tax purposes. For failure to file partnership returns. see IRC Sections 761 and 6698.

I will add that you can do this by looking at the top of this page and right next to the My ATX button is the Donation button. Eric keeps this board up and running year round, and has never asked us for any fee. If you think it's a valuable resource, please do click on that button and pitch in something to help cover Eric's costs and show your appreciation for his generosity.

Joan, give your body a chance, it's telling you that you are not just hurting, you are also very tired. Take the time to recover, those returns will wait. Sending healing thoughts your way.

This situation often occurs when the person named as trustee, often a family member with little financial knowledge, is in a rush, as this was clearly was, to 'cash out' the assets and distribute the money. Sounds like the sale may even have preceded the funeral. DOD Oct 20, 2014 SALE Oct 24, 2014. I agree with Old Jack, It should be reported on the individuals estate 1041 with a step-up cost basis.

Jack, you are SO SO WRONG. This gal appreciates that too. Here is a pic of one that one of my clients brought to show me, btw. 32 Ford. Yes, that's me waving.