kcjenkins

They used to have a CCH board, but they shut it down for 'remodeling' or some such thing, and it has not gotten back up yet. Perhaps in Dec? Or Feb? Or maybe early April?

Of course, I love it when people add their own jokes to mine! Here's another one I enjoyed: Are You Insane? It doesn't hurt to take a hard look at yourself from time to time. This little test should get you started. During a visit to the mental asylum, a visitor asked the Director what the criteria is that defines a patient to be institutionalized. "Well," said the Director, "we fill up a bathtub. We offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient, and ask the patient to empty the bathtub." OK, here's your test: 1. Would you use the spoon? 2. Would you use the teacup? 3. Would you use the bucket? "Oh, I understand," said the visitor. "A normal person would choose the bucket as it is larger than the spoon." "No," answered the Director. ======== "A normal person would pull the plug."

I'd be inclined to ignore a stoppage that only lasted 2 months, March and April. But you'll have to decide what YOU are comfortable with.

The best he can do is the theft loss rules, which is a shame, but not your fault. It's his fault for doing it, especially doing it without asking for competent professional advice. Isn't it amazing how people will spend that kind of money, especially when they don't really have it to spend, without asking first?

Either way, he's stuck with the 15 years, although you should be able to write ithe balance off in full in the year he retires for good.

While there may well have been a breach of fiduciary responsibilities, this is, as Jainen points out, a sticky issue. And your client could be hurt by the fallout, too, since he ended up with the S Corp, and he probably does not want it to be accidentally converted to a C Corp. Nor does he need to have a long drawn-out battle over an amount that will be a lot less than the resulting attorney fees would be, would be my guess. Why not start by asking for copies of these medical bills that were 'reimbursed'? After all, that is basic to them being non-taxable to the employee. If she has them, then that is one thing. If not, I'd add the payments to her W-2. But I would be very hesitant to start a major war over $10K, when it could well end up being a cheap payment to get her out of his hair.

From the IRS website: Deduction for Discrimination Suit Costs — A new deduction is available for those who pay attorney's fees and court costs in connection with discrimination suits. Taxpayers can take the new deduction whether they itemize or not. The deduction cannot exceed the amount includible in income for the year on account of a judgment or settlement resulting from the discrimination claim. Generally, personal legal expenses are not deductible, but an employee who incurs legal expenses related to doing or keeping his job could deduct these expenses on Schedule A as a miscellaneous itemized deduction. However, under The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, an individual with legal fees and court costs arising from a discrimination suit may deduct the costs directly from income on the front of the tax return; this is known as an above-the-line deduction. Under this new deduction, amounts paid for attorney's fees and court costs are deductible in computing alternative minimum tax, and are not subject to the 2 percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions or the overall limitation on itemized deductions. The Act, signed into law on Oct. 22, 2004, describes the discrimination claims qualifying for this new deduction. Only costs paid after Oct. 22, 2004, for judgments or settlements occurring after that date qualify for this deduction. The amount that may be deducted above-the-line may not exceed the amount includible in the taxpayer's gross income for the taxable year on account of a judgment or settlement (whether by suit or agreement and whether as a lump sum or periodic payments) resulting from the claim. Code Section 62(a)(20). For purposes of the deduction, unlawful discrimination is an act that is unlawful under: (5) Section 4 or 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Linda, we will pray for them both. Please let us know when your new grandchild arrives! Grandkids are great, and it was kind of them to have it while you have time to indulge in grand-parenting! Just imagine how you'd feel if she delivered Feb 1st.

35th Wedding Anniversary Scroll down. A married couple in their early 60s was celebrating their 35th wedding anniversary in a quiet, romantic little restaurant. Suddenly, a tiny yet beautiful fairy appeared on their table saying, 'For being such an exemplary married couple and for being loving to each other for all this time, I will grant you each a wish.' The wife immediately said "Oh, I want to travel around the world with my darling husband." The fairy waved her magic wand and - poof! two tickets for the Queen Mary II appeared in her hands. The husband thought for a moment: 'Well, this is all very romantic, but an opportunity like this will never come again. I'm sorry my love, but my wish is to have a wife 30 years younger than me.' The wife, and the fairy, were deeply disappointed, but a wish is a wish. So the fairy waved her magic wand and - poof! the husband became 92 years old. The moral of this story: Men who are ungrateful pigs should remember, fairies are female.

No, Annie, that should not even come into it, since she inherited it, her basis is the FMV. So she should have no gain to need to exclude.

Glad to know that the techs are looking over this site. We still miss William a lot, but are happy to have all the others who want to join in.

That's what Google is for.

If you are not in CA, and do 5 or less, you don't have to.

There were 3 good arguments that Jesus was black: 1. He called everyone brother 2. He liked Gospel 3. He didn't get a fair trial But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish: 1. He went into His Father's business 2. He lived at home until he was 33 3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his Mother was sure He was God. But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Italian: 1. He talked with His hands 2. He had wine with His meals 3. He used olive oil But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a Californian: 1. He never cut His hair 2. He walked around barefoot all the time 3. He started a new religion But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was an American Indian: 1. He was at peace with nature 2. He ate a lot of fish 3. He talked about the Great Spirit But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Irish: 1 He never got married. 2. He was always telling stories 3. He loved green pastures But the most compelling evidence of all - 3 proofs that Jesus was a woman: 1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was virtually no food 2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it 3. And even when He was dead, He had to get up because there was still work to do.

I don't mean to be 'picky', Jainen, but your post is confusing to me. You first say it extends it to them "unless an EA, CPA or attorney personally signs the return", but then you say it applies to "anyone who enters tax data, even if they are only an assistant who does not sign the return". So which is it?

Well, since she is selling something that she does not actually own, it's not a sale, so how can it be income? No way that this makes economic sense, unless the father has 'given' both girls the house already? I think that you'd be foolish to give her tax advice until you read the legal documents behind this transaction. I'm hoping that they talked to an attorney, and had a contract of some sort drawn up, so that is where I'd start. People do some really weird things when it comes to inheritances, you want to avoid being a casualty of their family issues.

I'd tend to recommend receiving the gain now, both because I suspect that tax rates will go up, at least on cap gains [you know only those evil rich people get them] and also because given the problems within the real estate market right now, I would favor a cash sale over an installment, on any sale where there was not a lot of equity paid down up front.

Yes, Tom, you are welcome here no matter what software you use, and I'd guess that maybe 15-20% of the 'regulars' on here use Drake now. All we ask is that members don't slam other software, whether ATX or Drake or any other program, but just stick to facts. Otherwise, questions about either taxes or software are welcome here. We even set up a page to get links to evaluate other software. So stick around, you're welcome anytime here.

Tom, the The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct)1 added Code Sec. 179D, which provides for up to a $1.80 per square immediate tax deduction for building investments that achieve specifi ed energy cost reductions above ASHRAE 20012 building energy code standards. That is for the owner of the business property, so that could be any client who is building, or planning to build, a new property. The second area that applys to business owners, not builders, here is this part: Those facilities that already have energy efficient lighting at the EPAct qualifying level can obtain an immediate tax deduction of up to 60 cents per square foot using the free riding path, provided they meet all of the normal EPAct lighting project requirements. With free riding, the energy performance accomplishments of the existing lighting platform are taken into account and the EPAct permits a tax deduction provided that there is a new lighting investment. Many companies that already have energy efficient lighting are using free riding to obtain tax deductions for investments in further energy reducing lighting, lighting controls, sensors and daylight harvesting.

http://tinyurl.com/6ghy4e This one should be read by all tax professionals, IMHO. It's more understandable than most such discussions, and focused on the tax implimentation. Check it out.

Buy a very large freezer, and start stocking up now, quickly, while you can still find them in the stores. Expect there to be major 'runs' on them, very soon. Also, check out the methods of buying online, and having them shipped in to you. I do not think they have yet claimed the power to block you from buying from other states items that are lawful to purchase. I think the Food Gestapo is still a few years away, even in CA. Although you might want to plan ahead, and put that freezer in a hidden room with a disguised door, and keep it's existence a secret, just in case.

That is true. That's one of the reasons I encourage everyone to at least put their state into their profile. I like being able to ask someone who deals with it every day, when the law is not too clear.

Well, if you do want to keep her, spend a bit more time explaining things to her, it may be that what she really wants is someone to 'vent' about the taxes with, and that is an honest thing. Sometimes I find that just agreeing with them how lousy and unfair the system is to them is all they really need to hear. They can't call up the IRS and go off on them, so they need to talk to someone who understands, and who can agree with them, while still keeping them out of trouble. Let her know clearly that you sympathize with her, and will do all you can to keep her taxes as low as is legal, and I bet she comes back to you. And you can have sympathy, even while you know it is her responsibility to pay in on that income that does not have automatic withholding. I can sympathize with anyone who has to pay even $100, while our Congress wastes so damn much!

I think just looking at the efile manager, and clicking 'incomplete' and looking to see what is not checked is enough reminder. I also check the 'rejected' and the 'held' categories, every day as soon as I log in, so that anything that is still in 'held' can be followed up on, and anything rejected ditto. Beyond that, I think that you just have to recognize that you are human, and so you will sometimes make a mistake, no matter how careful you are. And forgive yourself on that basis.

I too am not going to bring that up. Frankly, most either got it already, or they may not get it next year for the same reasons. And I find that while they are likely to reduce withholding if it is advised, they seldom 'remember' to increase it back later. Plus, if they get it over time, as a reduction in withholding, they don't remember, or feel like, that they did actually get it. So it would not have any real 'stimulus' effect, right? ;~)