BulldogTom

I have a neice who bought a house and closed Dec 17th. Sucks to be her. My other neice (her sister) is trying to close this month. Great for her. Tom Lodi, CA

Just a heads up for you Comm Prop State practitioners. When you try to create the e-file it will bomb out and tell you that you need to fill out the Comm Property Worksheet in the 1040 Efile tab. When you enter the income on the lines, it still bombs out. Logan at ATX gave me the solution. You must also fill in line 9 on that worksheet. It will not total down to that amount. You need to enter it. Then your e-file will create. Crap like this just drives me nuts. Tom Lodi, CA

Are those Honey Buns stuck to the side of her head? And did we really dress like that in the 70's? Check out some of those "daisy dukes" on both the guys and the girls. ROFLMAO. Tom Lodi, CA

Danrvan has the equipment part down pat. I think what we are all confused about is the amount that the buyer paid for (in cash, not notes) for the goodwill. I think Jenmo is trying to bring that back on the books because it was "returned" and she showed it on the sale. But I am not clear if any of the sale of the goodwill was ever recognized for tax purposes. I may be off base, but I think that is what she is asking about. I don't know the answer for sure, but I am guessing that since there was probably no recognized gain on the sale of the goodwill, there is nothing to pay taxes on again. Tom Lodi, CA

This quote from MSNBC News. It is a small tidbit from the details of the compromise bill. Notice the dates of purchase. You hit it right on the head, JohnH. "Homebuyer credit $3.7 billion to repeal a requirement that a $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit be paid back over time for homes purchased from Jan. 1 to August 31, unless the home is sold within three years." Tom Lodi, CA

Your post is a little confusing. The purpose of an installment sale (tax purpose) is to delay the taxation of the transaction until the money is recieved. If this was treated for tax purposes as an installment sale, there would have been very little or no tax paid on the return because it appears your client recieved no cash at the point of sale. Therefore, when the property was returned, the deferred tax would become due. I assume that is why you are coming up with 10K. But again, the post is not very clear to me, so I might be off base on this. Tom Lodi, CA

That is an interesting development. I heard the 15K credit was scrapped, but I did not read about the change to this credit. It is always so dangerous to advise a client based on what "might" actually become law. I have another client that we decided to amend the return after the stimulus package is finalized to see what comes out of it. Thanks for the heads up. I will be looking for confirmation on that credit when the bill finally goes to the President. Tom Lodi, CA

That would be my guess also. Look at the stub, and if it is in fact a 2008 paycheck, then use the normal proceedure to file a substitute W2. Tom Lodi, CA

Kyle, You may want to download pub 17 to your desktop. It is the main publication for Individual tax returns. If you save it in PDF format, there is a handy menu that takes you to all the areas of taxation on the 1040, and hyperlinks to them so you don't have to scroll trough all the pages. Most situations can be found in that pub. It is the new stuff and the weird stuff that may require looking beyond pub 17 for "normal" (whatever that is) tax returns. Tom Lodi, CA

It is not the worked date, but the paid date that matters. I would guess that is what the manager meant. Even though she worked in 2008, she did not begin working before the "cut off date" for a 2008 paycheck. In many companies (especially if they pay bi-weekly) it would not be unusual to start work and not get a check for 3 weeks. I would put a note in the file for 2009 that she should be looking for the W2 from that restaurant, or you might be amending the 2009 return when it comes in. Hope this helps. Tom Lodi, CA

I am just going to tell him there is no provision for a "have it your way" loan from the government. You take it on their terms or don't take it. And it IS an interest free loan. Tom Lodi, CA

I thought of that too, but I think that would still stretch out the repayment 15 years. What the client wants is to take a smaller amount (say 2500) and pay it back at 500/year for 5 years. This damn credit is screwy. Tom Lodi, cA

Client is asking and I can't find an answer. The instructions are not real helpful (or I am just missing it). Tom Lodi, CA

Thanks for the update. I am really going to look at that software this year. Tom Lodi, cA

You might want to add that the elderly client had read somewhere that the RMD was not required by a new law. Because he is elderly, he mixed up the years. As soon as he found out he made the mistake, he corrected it. Sounds like reasonable cause to me. You know, like the Secretary made an honest mistake and corrected it. If it is good for him, why not your client? Tom Lodi, CA

Isn't there a new law from the bank bailout that waives the requirement for RMD's in 2008. I thought (always a scary thing) that I read that in the highlights of the law. I think I have a PPC email that I read that in. Don't go off my word. Check it out for yourself, but I am sure I read that. It may be in the new bill that is in congress right now, but I think it was in the bank bailout bill that already passed. Tom Lodi, CA

I too feel like I know most of you. But there is one person I really miss - WILLIAM TASKER. If he were on this board and still at ATX support, it would be just like home. Tom Lodi, CA

This is just an aside, as I believe you have the right answer above. But if you proceeded as you originally proposed, I would think that you would have transfered the USE TAX liability to your individual client. I don't know about New York for sure, but I think the laws are similar to that in CA. If an end user aquires goods for personal use that are not exempt from sales tax, and that sales tax was not paid, the consumer must pay USE TAX on the acquisition of that product. This situation normally arises in the purchase of goods from a vendor in a state that does not have sales tax and are brought into the state with a Sales/Use tax requirement. But I think it would apply equally in this case to the transfer of goods to the shareholder. Just adding an unrelated bit of information to the discussion. I was thinking there was something wrong with the original thought of how to treat it also, but I did not get to the right answer until I saw the other posts. But I was sure there had to be either a sales or use tax in the mix somewhere. Thanks to all for the information. I have been educated by this post. Tom Lodi, CA

But when you have no line 41 or 36 entries, you still get the error message on efile. That is the baffling part. Tom Lodi, CA

The bank thing is not a bank thing -- it is an ATX thing. They "require" that you go through their system so they can get their $10 from the client. And their banking system is set up for Taxwise, not ATX. We have had multiple problems with their banking products, and none of it relates to the bank. We did a couple of direct deposit rals, then we were not enrolled for check rals. We could not print the checks off their site and they could not tell us why. The bank did their part and sent the authorizations to ATX for us to print the checks. ATX screwed it up. And the process of getting enrolled is horrible. And when you call their support, they don't know a thing. I have worked with SBBT over the years, and they are solid. It was only when ATX forced us onto their online banking system that this got screwed up. Look back at the posts where people are having problems with the bank products and you will see the common thread is ATX, regarless of the bank. And if you look at the first line of my post, I said some of the things are not necessarily ATX's fault. I know the forms are IRS release issues and I know that CA is slowing everything down. But taken as a whole, I am not as happy with ATX as I was 2 years ago (when it was darn near a perfect season for us). I still love you KC. I am just venting. Tom Lodi, CA

I had that pop up also. I wrote in "This is an explanation" and it went through. Not sure if that is going to bite me in the butt or not. I guess we will see. Tom Lodi, CA

I heard that HRB is now charging a $29 consulting fee. When you sit down, they require you to pay $29 if you don't have your return filed by them. I guess they are tired of being shopped by people who get to the end of the process and take back their W2's. I don't blame them, but it is the first time I heard about it. Have any of you heard of it? Tom Lodi, CA

I am glad you are happy. I am not so thrilled. Not that it is terrible, and not that it is all ATX fault, but..... 1. Forms are later this year than last 2. Bank products are a disaster (for some reason we are seeing more this year than any year in the past) 3. E-file on CA is not smooth 4. Customer Support is not very helpful (even with the sweet southern accent they talk with) 5. Customer Support wait times are still about an hour 6. Misterious little bugs keep popping up and then disappearing. Nothing major, but still unexplained little problems that are fixed with restarts. 7. Some of the changes to the software were a suprise this year. Little things that are just annoying because they aren't the way they were. If you take each item, it seems like little things, and they are. But taken as a whole, I am just not as happy as I have been in past years with ATX. I got an e-mail from Drake that says they have direct to form entry now. I am going to look at it very hard this off season. I wanted to pull the trigger on them 2 years ago, but I really like the on form entry. That was the only reason I did not switch in the past. Tom Lodi, CA

The comparison sheet is a great place to look. If it is not on the 1040, look at the 3rd page of the report, the sch. A comparison. Maybe you mis-entered a deduction (hey, it happens to all of us). I caught one this year on my review where I entered 2,700 in state withholding instead of 270. Luckily, I caught it before the client saw it. Tom Lodi, CA

This is one nominee that I hope they reject in the confirmation process. She is as liberal as they come and is financed by the Labor Unions. Every one of her campaigns. Her father was a shop steward and her mother was in the SEIU for years. In her book, if you are not union, you should not be allowed to work. I would love it if Obama had to pass on this one. Tom Lodi, CA