kcjenkins

Got mine Saturday.

If you are a member of Costco or Sam's Club, both of them offer a low cost credit card service.

Best of the Web Today - November 6, 2007 By JAMES TARANTO 'Berkshire Has Protested' Yesterday we noted that Warren Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, was complaining that he doesn't pay enough in taxes. We noted that this is by choice: He could make a donation to the Treasury if he wanted; and he has taken steps to shield his assets from the death tax. It turns out Berkshire Hathaway isn't eager to maximize its tax burden either. This is from the company's 10-Q, a quarterly earnings report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (page 8): Berkshire and its subsidiaries' income tax returns are continuously under audit by Federal and various state, local and foreign taxing authorities. Berkshire's consolidated Federal income tax return liabilities have been settled with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") through 1998. The IRS has completed its audits of the 1999 through 2004 tax returns and has proposed adjustments to increase Berkshire's tax liabilities which Berkshire has protested. The examinations are in the IRS' appeals process. The unsettled issues primarily relate to the timing of deductions for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses and other liabilities of property and casualty insurance subsidiaries. Now of course we can't really criticize Berkshire for trying to minimize its tax liability. Its executives, after all, have an obligation to their shareholders. But it does make Buffett look all the more silly when he complains taxes are too low while shielding his personal fortune from Uncle Sam.

Whether it is worth the fee depends on the client, in most cases. Some of my clients pay when they get their returns, some I allow to wait and pay me when they get the refund. If they have been slow in the past to 'remember' to pay me, I may ask for a 'hold check', or, I might go for the FeeCollect method, so that I do not have to do anything about holding a check, and deciding when to deposit it, etc. And I might just add the $15 to their fee, if I think it's justified. The nice thing is to have the option, because you can use it on as many or as few as you want.

You are welcome.

I think there is a communication problem here. Whether you can roll a 401K over into another 401K depends on how the second plan is set up. But if they can not role into the new plan, they can still roll over the old 401K into an IRA.

Gary, the tax return would clearly be included in the items covered. You should probably check with your E and O insurance carrier, as well, before you go.

Call support and let them help you get it fixed.

My advice is to let the 'owner' write the letter, making it as simple as possible, citing whatever reasons he has, including simple ignorance. And promising never to make the same mistake again. The odds are good that he will get an abatement. If he does not, he should try again, at least once, although I know of one person who got the abatement on the third try.

An excellent and useful post, Jake. Thanks for the reminder.

Pacun is right. You can have up to three users, for the same price, but they must all be part of the same 'firm'. What is not allowed, because it is not fair to the company, is for two or three individual firms to all 'share' the same program. The price is so fair, IMHO, for all that you get from ATX, that it is really totally unacceptable behavior to try to rip them off by 'sharing' your program with another sole proprietor, for example.

Deb is correct.

I don't understand, the column one is blue fields because it's an input field. The only default column is the third one.

Actually. the rule is that 'prizes' over 600 are reported, slot machine winnings over 1199 are reported, and table games winnings over 5000 are reported. The reason has more to do with the reporting burden on the casinos than anything else. The law says that the taxpayer is to report all his winnings, not just the ones that are reported. But, from a practical point of view, unless you win a significant prize, the odds are very high that your losses exceed your winnings. The problem with table games is how to keep up with how much each player 'wins', when chips move back and forth, and the players buy their chips, but the casino has no easy way to know, when they are cashed back in, how much was 'bought' by you, and how much was 'won'. The tournaments, however, do have that info available.

Where did you get the idea I was saying to conceal the death? I merely said not to bother with a detailed explanation until you get a chance to talk to the OIC officer. I would certainly put 'deceased' in the signature box, Jainen. And I did not say his assets were outside their reach, just that HE is. I think you are reading too much into what I posted, then jumping to conclusions about what you think I meant.

John, I would do it in both names, but put the surviving spouse name as the primary name, and the deceased one as the 'spouse'. That way you have all the bases covered, but the person who is actually going to be the one paying and negotiating will be the remaining individual. I don't know that this is the 'preferred' way, as I have never had that come up. But it makes sense to me, because you want to end the obligation for both of them, so that the surviving spouse can move on with her life without any lingering issues from her deceased spouse. Once you get to the point of actually discussing the offer with an OIC officer, that will be the time to discuss the fact that one of the two joint taxpayers is already outside of their reach. Don't bother attaching a statement to explain it at the start.

Was he intending to live in this house? Or planning to buy it then resell it?

That makes a lot of sense, Joan. And I know that a lot of folks who moved up to Max a year or two ago when they had that special price for upgrading found that they realized other benefits that they had not thought about before they tried it. One new client with a need for the expanded forms in Max can pay for the upgrade, after all.

You can convert that pdf to an excel spreadsheet, then make that a 'custom' form. Or you can 'copy' the data in the pdf, go to the Forms menu, select 'Create Spreadsheet', click on the blank first cell, then 'paste' the info onto the form. You may have to widen some fields for the data to show correctly, but it works very easily. Then just make sure it is included in the forms to be transmitted.

Well, seems to me it's nice for those in OH who have the need to have the option. I know there were always howls of pain from OH preparers. It's not something most of us would need, but for those with the need, the cost will be minor. Just think of the value of the time saved, on those who need multiple towns. I'd say it's also a good sign for the rest of us, that they are still 'enhancing' the product. So it costs more. That is something that almost always happens. QB has added to their price each year, with less than great improvements, IMHO, for the extra money, for just one example.

The Internal Revenue Service announced today that the October Tax Talk Today program will be “The ABCs of OPR.” The live hour-long Webcast will focus on the IRS’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which is responsible for setting, communicating and enforcing standards of competence, integrity and conduct among tax professionals who practice before the IRS. The Webcast is scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, at 2 p.m. ET. Discussion topics on the Webcast will include an overview of OPR, Circular 230 and monetary penalties. Panelists will be Michael Chesman, Director, IRS Office of Professional Responsibility; Deborah Butler, IRS, Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure and Administration; Mark Kaizan, IRS, Associate Chief Counsel, General Legal Services; and Pamela Olson, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Tax Talk Today is a Webcast aimed at educating tax and payroll professionals on the most current and complex tax issues. Tax professionals who wish to learn about OPR are encouraged to watch and submit questions. To access the Webcast at no charge, viewers can register online at www.TaxTalkToday.tv. Tax professionals in need of continuing education credits (CECs) are eligible to receive one CEC by viewing the October 16 Webcast.

IRS Issues Redesigned Allowable Living Expense Standards Allowable Living Expense Redesign Changes to the 2007 ALE Standards To promote better consistency and fairness, the IRS has revised the methodology for calculating some of the Allowable Living Expense standards used in collection determinations. These changes will be reflected in the 2007 standards which will become available and effective October 1, 2007. The Allowable Living Expenses rely solely on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and other governmental expenditure figures, which are based on surveys of actual consumer expenditures and provide a fair basis for allowances. For more story - http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/articl...=173524,00.html To access the revised figures - http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96543,00.html

Bonnie, on the K-1 Input form, cursor down to the section named Passive Carryovers and At-Risk Limitations, enter the info in the appropriate line(s), and the form will make the PYA notation for you.

NO, since they normally have sets of books, it does not. I have, occasionally, for a client with a small LLC, for example, done my own version by adding an organizer to the 1065, then just modifying the Sch C page to fit the Line 20 info, and then just printing that page for him. You can easily modify that page by using the Tools menu, Unprotect, option. After modifying it, just protect it again. If you have many you want that for, you can make a Custom form by taking the organizer, eliminate the unneeded parts, modify that page, then save it as a custom form that you can use over and over.

U.S. TAX COURT The husband in this case had invested substantial sums of money in the famous Hoyt Partnership tax schemes, which have been held fraudulent. The wife, who signed the couple's joint tax return, said she relied on her husband's assurances that the Hoyt Partnership investments were legitimate, even though she did not consult separate professionals for an opinion. The wife had never received any training or instruction in business or taxes. The IRS rejected the wife's application for innocent-spouse status based on her alleged participation in the Hoyt partnerships, and because she was thought to have benefitted from the erroneous tax refunds the couple received on account of the fraudulent Hoyt returns. The Tax Court disagreed, noting that there was virtually no evidence that the wife participated, had never communicated with a Hoyt representative, had never attended a Hoyt meeting, and never read correspondence from the Hoyt people. As to substantial benefit, the court noted the evidence that the substantial refunds were deposited in the husband's separate bank account, and that there was no evidence the wife enjoyed any special benefit from it; the funds were apparently largely reinvested in more Hoyt schemes. Observed the Court: "During the years in issue, petitioner's (wife's) standard of living remained constant. There were no lavish expenditures of any kind that benefitted petitioner." The court recited the accepted rule that the benefit rule only applies to "significant" benefit, and "Normal support is not considered a significant benefit." As to whether the wife had a duty to make reasonable inquiry into the legitimacy of a tax related investment, the court found that her questioning of her husband satisfied that requirement. Based on these considerations the Tax Court held that the wife was entitled to innocent-spouse relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6015©. Juell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2007-210 (Aug. 8 2007). Swift, Judge.