kcjenkins

Eric started this board out of the goodness of his heart. He's not about to tell you what to contribute. I just hope that you all will do at least some. Think how much benefit you have received, then try to put a dollar value on that, and then let your heart be your guide. He's paying out of his own pocket to keep this running. I was so blown away by what he'd done, in those bad days when CCH had just killed our board, that I was thrilled when he asked me to help by being his back-up Moderator. And while I try to contribute that way, I also donate at least a couple of times a year. If every member would pitch in a bit of cash, either through PayPal or by check, no one would need to give a great deal. But realistically, not everyone will. So if you've had a good year, be generous. If things are tight, even $5 would still show that you appreciate what he does for us. I do hope that everyone will do at least that much.

Yes, I filed direct when I used TAASC, Joel. But I have to say that I've had few problems with ATX efile, and never a problem that lasted long. So I really prefer it to having to do it myself. I have not looked into what it would take to go back to direct. Wonder if it is improved any? I have little faith that the IRS end is better, though.

Well, the good thing, JB, is that she's now gone through a tax season, so if she says yes she makes the decision in full knowledge of your worst, as well as your best. Because tax season always brings out the worst in us at some point. No tax professional should ever marry without having gone through at least one tax season with the person, first. Some folks just can not take the stress.

Since land is not depreciated, it is not really a big issue whether it goes on the 4797 or not, because it's going to the D from there anyway. The basis she has should be the FMV on DOD. So she may not have a very big gain to worry about. You do need to know more about the type of trust, though.

Use the Vacation rental tab on the bottom of the E, and it will walk you through the calculations.

Wasn't me, must have been Eric. It was gone before I got here. I've been way too busy today to even log in. I've got people coming out of the woodwork asking for extensions. And those take time, even with the software's help. I never went to bed last night, so I'm moving slow today. Looking forward to crashing soon.

Glad to know it's not just me! I was in the middle of transmitting extensions, half of them went and the other half did not, and I did not realize it was their problem until I sent them again and got the same response.

We all are. This is the time when we make the most mistakes. And panic over everything. Hang in there, it will get better soon.

I JUST ANSWERED THAT ONE.

They only have to sign if they are paying, and the Form they sign for that is the 8879. Otherwise, their PIN is all it takes. Just put in the date they authorized you to file the extension, in other words, the date you are filing it. No sigs needed if it's a zero due extension.

Lion is right, if the child is his dependant, then he can not claim himself even if the person who could claim him did not. So you did it right, and the son's liability just has to be paid.

That is an interesting History leason, ask again in May.

Actually, what we all need is some uninterrupted sleep, and a couple of days with not a single telephone within a mile of us.

The home office depreciation is always SL, so you just need one year's amount, plus the number of years he's taken it, then deduct for any years it was not taken due to earning limits. Best thing to do when you have these is to set it up to track it in the Perm. File, so that when the time comes, it's already there. Just have to set it up once, then update takes seconds each year.

OK. Pacun is talking about entering in on the 1040 and the K-1 input sheet. You, as I understand it, are talking about preparing the 1065, right? On the K-1, the Input tab, scroll down to section G. Mark the box there for General then H would be domestic, then I would be type, and there you enter A for Active. That should cause the ordinary income to flow automatically to SE taxable.

And, you need to treat them both as single. So one may be HOH, the other single. His obligation to pay her half of the tax on the distribution is just one more example of lawyers and the judge not really understanding tax law, so they try to make it simple. But it's an obligation between the two people, not on her or his tax return.

So now ATX is bad because it does not do it wrong, when the others do? Man, that's cold.

Then if it is signed by a Judge, it is the same thing, for tax purposes, as a divorce, and they can not file MFJ. They file as single or as HOH, as the case may be.

Make sure all the partners are general partners and Active Individuals, and it should flow there automatically.

It is taxable income, however, it can be reported directly to line 7 because it does not require SE tax.

First, you only need that if they are going to be paying with the extension. If they do not owe, you don't need their signature to efile the extension. If you do need it, you need to print the form as a pdf. Save it to your desktop, then send them an email and attach that pdf file as an attachment. They can then print it, and fax it back to you. The faxed copy is all you have to have on file.

UNLESS........It is a legal Decree of Separation, which has much the same tax effect as a divorce decree.

You do not have to recapture unless use falls below 50%, the way the section reads. Since the use might well go back up, I would not worry about changing the depreciation until it either falls below 50% or it is disposed of.

Yes, he can show the labor income, as 'custom hire' on line 9 of the F, and depreciate the breeding stock. I try at all times to avoid 'barter income', so even tho these two items cancel each other out, if you §179 the heifers, I would report both sides.

"IRS 'clarifies' a new filing option for married business partners: Owners of limited liability companies can't use it. Joint filers who are the sole owners of unincorporated businesses can elect not to file as a partnership, thus avoiding a complicated partnership return and K-1s. Starting with 2007 returns, each spouse can instead report their share of income and expenses on separate Schedule Cs. But IRS says to qualify, the spouses must own and operate the business as co-owners, not as an LLC." At a IRS sponsored seminar last fall, we were told that husband and wife partnerships, including LLCs, no longer had to file 1065s. Now they tell us they were just kidding about the LLCs. I personally always wondered why any preparer would want to eliminate the extra business that filing the proper 1065s would give them? But, hey, many of you did. Now, at least for LLCs, that option is clearly not available.