kcjenkins

Well, if it is taken on the A, it goes on Line 28, line 7 of that worksheet. That is for Claim of Right deductions under $3000. If it is over $3000, then Pub 525 page 33, shows you how to calculate it and report it.

Probably, but it's my understanding that they only want CPAs to participate in the polot testing. Guess it would not hurt, tho, to call them and ask.

I think I would add those expenses to her basis, and show the sale, rather than try that, JB. Because to be rental property, it has to at least be in good enough shape to rent, and since it never got to that level, even if you set it up as a rental, those costs to get it to rentable shape would need to be capitalized.

Are you a CPA who would like to earn free CPE credits? You can do so by assisting the CCH Small Firm Services Training department in pilot testing ATX University courses. Please e-mail [email protected] for more information.

http://www.centerfortaxstudies.com/blog/ta...008/07/02/p5578 Definitions The final regulation also defines the terms "custody" and "custodial parent" for purposes of Code Sec. 152(e). A child is in the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the calendar year if one or both parents have the right under state law to physical custody of the child for more than one-half of the calendar year. However, a child is not in the custody of either parent when the child reaches the age of majority under state law. A custodial parent is the parent with whom the child resides for the greater number of nights during the calendar year (the "counting nights" rule). Under the final regulation, a child resides for a night with a parent if the child: (1) sleeps at the parent's residence, whether or not the parent is present, or (2) sleeps in the company of the parent when the child does not sleep at a parent's residence, such as when the parent and child are on vacation. A night is not counted for either parent if the child would not have resided with either parent for the night or it cannot be determined with which parent the child would have resided for the night. The final regulation also adds an exception to the counting nights rule where a child resides for a greater number of days, but not nights, with a parent who works at night. Revocation of release of claim. Under both the final and proposed regs, a custodial parent who released the right to claim a child could revoke the release for future tax years by providing written notice of the revocation to the other parent. The final regs require that the parent revoking the release notify, or make reasonable attempts to notify, in writing, the other parent of the revocation. What is a reasonable attempt is determined under the facts and circumstances, but mailing a copy of the written revocation to the noncustodial parent at the last known address or at an address reasonably calculated to ensure receipt satisfies this requirement. A revocation can be made on Form 8332, or successor form designated by IRS. A revocation not on the designated form must conform to the substance of the form and be in a document executed for the sole purpose of revoking a release. A taxpayer revoking a release may attach a copy rather than an original to the taxpayer's return for the first tax year the revocation is effective, as well as for later years. (T.D. 9408, 07/01/2008, Reg. § 1.152-4(e)(3)) The final regs also clarify that a multiple year written declaration executed in a tax year beginning on or before July 2, 2008, that satisfies the requirements for the form of a written declaration in effect at the time the written declaration was executed is treated as satisfying the requirements for the form of a release under the final regs. However, the rules for revoking a release of a claim to an exemption apply without regard to whether a custodial parent executed the release in a tax year beginning on or before July 2, 2008; such a release executed may be revoked. (Reg. § 1.152-4(e)(5)) THIS LAST PART MAY LEAD TO SOME HEADACHES FOR US ALL DOWN THE ROAD. SORT OF MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE MULTIPLE-YEAR RELEASE, IMHO.

That sounds like a good insurance policy, for a fair price. One question, does that price cover just one computer, or any and all computers you have?

In the back woods of West Virginia, Mr. Stewart's wife goes into labor in the middle of the night, and the doctor is called out to assist in the delivery. To keep the nervous father-to-be busy, the doctor hands him a lantern and says, "Here, you hold this high so I can see what I'm doing." Soon, a wee baby boy was brought into the world. "Whoa, there Scotty!" says the doctor. "Don't be in a rush to put the lantern down... I think there's yet another wee one to come." Sure enough, within minutes he had delivered another little baby. "No, no, don't be in a great hurry to be putting down that lantern, young man... It seems there's yet another one besides!" cried the doctor. The new father scratched his head in bewilderment, and asked the doctor: "Do ya think it's the light that's attractin' them?"

It is my understanding that once she has an SSN, you use that.

Best to ask him about how many acres were actively farmed, and use that info as your guide. Clearly, whether he sells it all together or not, he can not exclude gain on that portion that was actively used for farming, but he certainly can exclude all portions that were not so used.

An old man and his dog were walking along a country road, enjoying the scenery, when it suddenly occurred to the man that he had died. He remembered dying, and realized, too, that the dog had been dead for many years. He wondered where the road would lead them, and continued onward. After a while, they came to a high, white stone wall along one side of the road. It looked like fine marble. At the top of a long hill, it was broken by a tall, white arch that gleamed in the sunlight. When he was standing before it, he saw a magnificent gate in the arch that looked like mother of pearl, and the street that led to the gate looked like pure gold. When he was close enough, he called out, "Excuse me, but is this heaven?" "Yes, it is, sir," the man answered. "Wow! Would you happen to have some water?" the man asked. "Of course, sir. Come right in, and I'll have some ice water brought right up." The gatekeeper gestured to his rear, and the huge gate began to open. "I assume my friend can come in..." the man said, gesturing toward his dog. But the reply was, "I'm sorry, sir, but we don't accept pets." The man thought about it, then thanked the gatekeeper, turned back toward the road, and continued in the direction he had been going. After another long walk, he reached the top of another long hill, and he came to a dirt road which led through a farm gate. There was no fence, and it looked as if the gate had never been closed, as grass had grown up around it. As he approached the gate, he saw a man just inside, sitting in the shade of a tree in a rickety old chair, reading a book. "Excuse me!" he called to the reader. "Do you have any water?" "Yeah, sure, there's a pump over there," the man said, pointing to a place that couldn't be seen from outside the gate. "Come on in and make yourself at home." "How about my friend here?" the traveler gestured to the dog. "He's welcome too, and there's a bowl by the pump," he said. They walked through the gate and, sure enough, there was an old-fashioned hand pump with a dipper hanging on it and a bowl next to it on the ground. The man filled the bowl for his dog, and then took a long drink himself. When both were satisfied, he and the dog walked back toward the man, who was sitting under the tree waiting for them, and asked, "What do you call this place?" the traveler asked. "This is heaven," was the answer. "Well, that's confusing," the traveler said. "It certainly doesn't look like heaven, and there's another man down the road who said that place was heaven." "Oh, you mean the place with the gold street and pearly gates?" "Yes, it was beautiful." "Nope. That's hell." "Doesn't it offend you for them to use the name of heaven like that?" "No. I can see how you might think so, but it actually saves us a lot of time. They screen out the people who are willing to leave their best friends behind."

Gene, that was Chief's 15th post on this board, and if you rearrange the words in his post, you get Jainen's clever result. Which, if you read it carefully, is actually a reversal of what Chief said. As usual, Jainen's humor is subtle and erudite.

If you use the IRS option, the IRS does the split, and the bank should accept the direct deposit as long as either of the two is on the account. It is done all the time. If in doubt, ask your bank first, but most of them handle this routinely.

Using the option to have the refund deposited into two different accounts is the easy way to do this. The second option is to have the refund go to the address of one of the divorce attorneys, who would than have the legal responsibility to properly distribute the refund between them. But the first option is cheaper and simpler.

Chief, you are WRONG. While the decision as to what is humorous is a personal one, that can be different, sharing jokes and such IS one of the things we do on this board. that is why we call it a 'Community', rather than just a Tax Board. You do not have to read them if you do not want to. The only mistake Elrod made was not labeling it NT, and I will fix that.

Every t/p with an IRS debt that I know of has his refund taken, even if making payments on their debt through an installment plan. And I do not believe it is possible to have a 'private' arrangement with an IRS agent, as stated here. So I think the t/p is trying to scam you into filing the return without his paying you first.

Very, very true. And just moves a little slower when it's a governmental agency.....

The Internal Revenue Service has moved the extended due date for partnership, estate and trust tax returns from Oct. 15 to Sept. 15 to avoid overlapping with the extended deadline for individual taxes. The change is aimed at easing the burden on taxpayers who must report information they receive from K-1 schedules and similar documents on their individual tax returns. Currently the extended due date for both businesses and individuals often falls on the same date, generally Oct. 15. "We are eliminating the same-day deadline for these returns, which causes needless hardship and puts the individual taxpayer in an awkward position," said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman in a statement. "We want to correct this timing issue to ensure that all taxpayers have the information they need to file timely and stay in compliance with the law." The change will be effective for extension requests for tax returns due on or after Jan. 1, 2009. It applies to business entities that have a tax year ending on or after Sept. 30, 2008 that file the following returns and forms: Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income; Form 1041, U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates & Trusts; and Form 8804, Annual Return for Partnership Withholding Tax (Section 1446). The regulation does not change the process for requesting an extension of time to file, nor does it affect extensions of time to file other types of business returns, such as those used by S corporations. S corporations have a due date of March 15 and, under a regular six-month extension of time to file, their extended due date already falls on Sept. 15.

The section titled "Information For Advance Consent Request" does not need to be used. The worksheets for Part III are found on the tabs at the bottom of the form. The current amortization goes in the asset entry form, the correction amount will be shown as a separate line item on the return, in Other Expenses, not with the current amounts. It should be labeled 'Correction from Form 3115 attached".

I think one reason for this push is that then the IRS would have virtually total control over who could be a tax preparer, without any other mitigating factors. If you could not get an EFIN, or you lost your EFIN for any reason, wham, you would be out of business, that day. And this without any recourse except to appeal to the very agency that just took it away from you. I know of one attorney who in the past had his EFIN suspended, for a reason that was not covered by anything in the code, and it took him many months to get that reversed. There was NO recourse for him except to keep on nagging at the IRS, and even getting his Congressman involved did not help much. Although at least the Congressman was able to get the IRS to finally respond to his appeal, and once they had to give that Congressman a reason based on a violation of the code, which they could not do, they did turn it back on. But that was 8 months after the suspension. Anyone here want to be in limbo for 8 months, unable to efile? Forced to paper file everything? Now, imagine on top of that if the only way you could file was efile?

Yes, the blank statement is used for this sort of situation, or any other time you need to include an explanation of some entry or some disclosure. Part III is where you will show the adjustment, and there are worksheets for it, as well. I hate that form, but I've found that the instructions are fairly good if you read them through several times. ;~) I don't see any way to get the install codes without either your invoice or calling the help number. And you may have to do that anyway, because I know that MY install code, which I used to install it just fine, was not the same number that I needed to unlock the site and reset my password. Two different numbers. of the 20, were changed, and no one could tell me why, but once I got the change given to me, I was able to get in. I've heard a couple of other people say that their number was also slightly different from the one on their invoice. So if you get the invoice, and try to reset the password, and it does not work, call the help line and right off the bat ask them to verify your install code. That could save you the 15 minutes I wasted before I realized what the problem was.

Well, John, when they get to those, be sure to take the coffeemaker, which is excellent, the toaster is really not that good.

Congrats to your dogs, Tom. Great game.

I had a couple of these, it was a pain, but hey, the IRS often makes us do things for THEIR convenience, and I guess it was easier for them to make us paper file than it was to fix the problem at their end.

This is the sort of thing that ATX, when it was still ATX, did really well. William would post it in the News section, and also put a post on the Community Board. Now, you could argue that CCH is just assuming that their customers are all competent professionals who do not need to be reminded of things that we already get from the IRS Notes, etc. Or you could argue that they are just not that smart about marketing. I'd guess it's the second, but since we get that sort of notice not only from the IRS but also on here, I'm not going to care that much. I do miss the old ATX attitude, but the software itself is still great, and so I'm not going to spend much time or thought on what is no longer there. I'll only get bothered when they don't tell us about changes THEY MAKE, that effect how the software works. Those we DO need, the other we get from multiple sources already. My 2¢.

Loved it. Thanks, Elrod.