kcjenkins

I asked my boys before installing it, both of them said that it had no problems, and to go ahead, run it. But to turn off every thing else first, including anti-virus. It actually improves some things, they tell me. Have not had time to actually test it, since I'm living in the hospital now. But the little time I've been on, no problems at all.

If he does not count the delivery charge as income, he can not deduct paying it to the driver as an expense. But he can deduct the $30 for fuel he pays out to these Independant Contractors who deliver for him.

Well, they finally took it out today. Tried the laparoscopic, but it was too diseased for that, they had to open him up as gangrene had started. But he's out of surgery, they got it all out, and hopefully now the pain will stop and he can begin to heal. It's been a rough time so far, so keep praying, please.

Thank you to all who answered, and also to those who did not reply but did keep us in your thoughts and prayers. Don is doing better, although he is going to have to have surgery to remove his gall bladder, some time this week, we expect. He's been having a rough time but is feeling better now, and I am told that the surgery is pretty simple and recovery times are usually short. Here's hoping........ Of course, like most men, he's a bit of a baby when it comes to being in the hospital. But he's trying hard to be a good patient, and so far so good. Only one 'explosion' in a full week! :lol:

IMRS 07-0000484 – Taxability of Proceeds from Livestock Sales at County Fairs Issue: Educational assistance is requested regarding the taxability of proceeds from livestock sales at county fairs and the requirements for issuing Form 1099, U.S. Information Return. Response: Information for the 4-H Fact Sheet was provided to the USDA. Publication 225, Farmer’s Tax Guide provides information for 4-H projects and prize monies from the projects. Information regarding 1099s can be found in the general instructions for Form 1099 on IRS.gov and instruction for Form 1099-MISC. From Pub 225: 4-H Club or FFA project. If an individual participates in a 4-H Club or FFA project, any net income received from sales or prizes related to the project may be subject to income tax. Report the net income on line 21 of Form 1040. If necessary, attach a statement showing the gross income and expenses. The net income may not be subject to SE tax if the project is primarily for educational purposes and not for profit, and is completed by the individual under the rules and economic restrictions of the sponsoring 4-H or FFA organization. Such a project is generally not considered a trade or business. NOTE THAT IT IS THE NET INCOME THAT IS TAXABLE. The student should have, as part of his project, kept detailed records of his expenses, so determining the net income should be simple if he followed those rules.

Well, we are back in the hospital, gall bladder this time. Looks like we will be there through at least Tuesday. Please keep both Don and me in your prayers.

Cute. And tech support has it right about those enhancement programs, Hot Food especially works very well when combined with Lingerie.

If it was paid to the owner in 2007, as you say it was, then just because the payroll taxes were not paid until 2008 would not mean it should not be on the 07 W-2.

Italian Mathematics... A recent Italian immigrant comes to New York and wants a job. However, the foreman at the job site won't hire him until he passes a little math test. "Here's your first question," the foreman says. "Without using numbers, represent the number 9." "Without numbers?" the Italian says, "Dat is easy." And he proceeds to draw three trees. "What's this?" the boss asks. "Ave you got no brain? Tree and tree and tree make nine," says the Italian. "Fair enough," says the boss. "Here's your second question. Use the same rules, but this time the number is 99." The Italian stares into space for a while, then picks up the picture that he has ust drawn and makes a smudge on each tree. "Ere you go." The boss scratches his head and says, "How on earth do you get that to represent 99?" "Each of da trees is dirty now. So, it's dirty tree, and dirty tree, and dirty tree. Dat is 99." "All right, last question. Same rules again, but represent the number 100." The Italian man stares into space some more, then he picks up the picture again and makes a little mark at the base of each tree and says, "Ere you go. One hundred." The boss looks at the attempt. "You must be nuts if you think that represents a hundred!" The Italian leans forward and points to the marks at the base of each tree and says, "A little dog came along and poop by each tree. So now you got dirty tree and a turd, dirty tree and a turd, and dirty tree and a turd, dat make one hundred. So, when I start?"

Subject: Tickle Me Elmo There is a factory in Northern Minnesota which makes the Tickle Me Elmo toys. The toy laughs when you tickle it under the arms. Well, Lena is hired at The Tickle Me Elmo factory and she reports for her first day promptly at 8:00 AM. The next day at 8:45 AM there is a knock at the Personnel Manager's door. The Foreman throws open the door and begins to rant about the new employee. He complains that she is incredibly slow and the whole line is backing up, putting the entire production line behind schedule. The Personnel Manager decides he should see this for himself, so the 2 men march down to the factory floor. When they get there the line is so backed up that there are Tickle Me Elmo's all over the factory floor and they're really beginning to pile up. At the end of the line stands Lena surrounded by mountains of Tickle Me Elmo's. She has a roll of plush red fabric and a huge bag of small marbles. The 2 men watch in amazement as she cuts a little piece of fabric, wraps it around two marbles and begins to carefully sew the little package between Elmo's legs. The Personnel Manager bursts into laughter. After several minutes of hysterics he pulls himself together and approaches Lena . 'I'm sorry,' he says to her, barely able to keep a straight face, 'but I think you misunderstood the instructions I gave you yesterday...' 'Your job is to give Elmo two test tickles." If you don't send this to your friends right away, there will be fewer people laughing in the world!

If it did come down to a challange, the parent would have to prove that he paid the amount he claimed. Only if the difference was a large one would it be likely to be questioned, but if the carer has kept good records, they should have no problem.

Yes, it was supposed to be independent and equal, Jainen, but in actual practice it quickly became unequal, as clearly demonstrated this year in the case involving Guantanamo trials. The SC first said, in an earlier case, that the Congress had to be the one to set the rules, then, when they did set them, and the Administration then followed those rules, the SC asserted it's total power by still throwing out the law that Congress had passed following the rules that they had set for it to do so. That is not equal, that is taking the total power, when they ignore the right that the Constitution gave Congress to make the laws. They did not decide based on Constitutional grounds, but rather they just did not like the law that was passed.

No, not if I understand your question. The fact that he has a large enough salary to be over the FICA limit says to me that the distribution should probably not have been added to salary. But I don't know all the facts, and if that is what the client wanted, that is fine. But since it's for money distributed in 2007, it belongs in the 07 941. And if it was treated as 'advances' until year end, then it's OK to put it in the last quarter. In fact, it could simply be not 'distributions' at all, but just that he waits until near year end to decide the total he can take, and he paid himself that extra paycheck then. It could even be taken in Jan, as long as it is authorized in 2007.

I agree Cathrine, but still, if they got a real SURGE of letters from preparers, they are political enough to react to it. And after all, this is not about expanding the government's reach into the taxpayers pockets. It's just about fairness to the preparers who help the government to get their money. I would also hope that each of the national organizations like NATP etc would consider funding a court challenge of the first member they have who is penalized under that position. And advertise that fact, to their members, so that we end up with several challenges fought through the courts, because I believe that we would win. It's just that many preparers would not have the resources to carry on such a fight, on their own, so they would pay up by default. What do the rest of you say to putting forth such a suggestion to any tax organization you belong to?

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Monsieur A. Coray, 31 October 1823)

Tell him he can not get his share of the inheritance until he gives it. If that does not work, and the trustee does not have it somewhere from when the trust was set up, put 'Refused' in the space for his number, and file it that way.

My point was that the IRS should not be allowed to assess penalties for actions we take that are neither falsely reporting the business results nor hiding a variance from what the IRS considers 'good practice'. Since the IRS has the corporate officer's salaries on a separate line, there is no further need for us to 'highlight' this item. They have had the ability to identify those companies who do not pay salary to their officers since the Sub S return began. This is simply a combination, IMO, of revenue generation and preparer intimidation, to try to make us do even more of their work for them. That is what needs to be pointed out the Congressmen.

Read it again: "the head of Employment Tax from the SB/SE Specialty Programs stated IRS will continue and expand upon federal and state partnerships particularly in the QETP (Questionable Employment Tax Practices) Program. He specifically stated that 1120S salaries and the issue of reasonable compensation would be a target and that tax return preparer’s were exposed to penalty assertions if they prepared returns that reflected a “less-than-market” salary for services rendered by small business owners of Sub S corporations. " Now, my point is that the tax preparer is not capable of forcing a client to take any specific salary, nor is it reasonable to require us not to prepare a return unless the client does pay themselves a salary. That is my only point, Jainen. The return is the owner's, so it's not either fair nor reasonable, IMHO, to require us to fire clients, or get fired by them, because they choose to assert that the amount that they pay themselves is justified. Especially if we happen to agree with them. If we have to disclose the issue, flag it, in fact, that is putting us on the hot seat when the IRS is already easily able to identify the returns, just by looking at line 7 of the 1120S. So it's not reasonable to penalize us for preparing a return that states the truth, that they did not pay themselves a salary, or paid a very small salary. We do our part when we properly fill out the Line 7. The IRS is perfectly capable of then looking at those returns that have what they consider 'problem Line 7 entries'. To apply penalties to us is just an attempt to make us do their work for them. That is not fair, and it's an abuse of power, IMO.

They will change that particular provision, or ruling, IF enough tax professionals write to them [no emails for this one, use snail mail on real paper] and clearly and politely explain WHY it is not reasonable to require them to do something that they are not in a legal position to do. Believe me, most Reps do not have the least idea how the tax code works, they rely on tax professionals for their own returns, and thus they tend to just assume that the IRS is the right source to make decisions about how to enforce the laws they pass. But if it is explained to them in a calm and logical manner, just WHY a particular rule is not fair, and not workable, they can and have corrected some of them. We have to try.

Which is why every single tax professional should be writing to their representatives and making the case clearly about what is wrong with this position of the IRS. So is correct that it is a circular logic here, and that it should not be our responsibility to force compliance onto our clients. At least not with an issue that is so unclear. But still, we do have to think very hard about the situation where there is not even a modest salary, and some income that is taken out. The IRS position is that in such a case, we can prepare the return, but, we also have to disclose the issue. Ignore that at your peril.

Best to get something from the older client BEFORE they reach the point of not being able to give competent permission.

Yes, and in that last one especially, under the new ruling we can NOT sign the return. 5 is the only one there that I'd be comfortable with, and that only depending on the income involved. Clearly, it's not going to be a problem with a business that is not making a profit, either. But when they are taking money in at a good rate, and taking money out as 'distributions' or 'loans', then there is no way that you can justify a 'no-salary' position, that is for sure.

Well, the choice under the new rules is that either they pay a reasonable salary, or you don't prepare the return. It's not that you are to determine the amount, but the IRS is going to hit you with serious penalties if you sign a return that does not have a reasonable salary for the stockholders who actually do work for the corp. You may not want to refuse to prepare the return, but you are going to have to decide if you want to get on the IRS 's..t list', as well as paying a penalty? This is a 'meaner, tougher' IRS, and you better know that.

If attaching a statement for a particular line, the best way is to right-click on the line. and then select the choice for adding a statement. That way the statement is automatically linked to that line.

Pearls of Corporate Stupidty... "As of tomorrow, employees will only be able to access the building using individual security cards. Pictures will be taken next Wednesday, and employees will receive their cards in two weeks." (Microsoft Corp. in Redmond WA ) What I need is an exact list of specific unknown problems we might encounter." (Lykes Lines Shipping) "E-mail is not to be used to pass on information or data. It should be used only for company business." (Accounting manager, Electric Boat Company) "This project is so important we can't let things that are more important interfere with it." (Advertising/Marketing manager, United Parcel Service) "Doing it right is no excuse for not meeting the schedule." (Plant Manager, Delco Corporation) "No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D supervisor, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing/3M Corp.) Quote from the Boss: "Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say." (Marketing executive, Citrix Corporation) My sister passed away and her funeral was scheduled for Monday. When I told my Boss, he said she died on purpose so that I would have to miss work on the busiest day of the year. He then asked if we could change her burial to Friday. He said, "That would be better for me." (Shipping executive, FTD Florists) "We know that communication is a problem, but the company is not going to discuss it with the employees." (Switching supervisor, AT&T Long Lines Division)