BulldogTom

Because I don't trust CCH SFS. I signed up for square yesterday. I don't do a lot of CC volume, but I was surprised at how many people wanted to use their debit card. The fees for the off season months was just too much, as well as the PCI compliance fees they charged every year for the CC machine. I am hopeful this will be a great addition to my business. Tom Hollister (soon to be Newark) CA

I think it would be ok if you wanted to go down that route. It might be a good way to build some revenue if you have slack time. Not that I would do it personally, but I would not rule it out. Tom Hollister, CA

CA treats Cap Gain as ordinary income as well. Tom Hollister, CA

Right. But a wife cannot be a dependent. That was the point of KC's post. The judge said he could claim the wife as a dependent and take 1/2 of the dependency exemption. That is never allowed. Tom Hollister, CA

Damn, I would like to go to that class, but I am already taking a day off for an estate and trust seminar. Why didn't you do this on a Saturday? Do you have room in the class for one more? How much? I might send my wife to this. Can you post the details or do you want to have an offline discussion? you can contact me through the board if you want to go offline. Let me know, I am interested. Thanks, Tom Hollister, CA

You missed the point on that one Jack. The court said the husband may claim the wife as a dependent for 1/2 of the year. This is a divorce, and their ain't no claiming a former spouse on that tax return. Tom Hollister, CA

This just keeps getting better. I send the guy an email telling him that we don't issue K-1's because we are a C corp. He says the underwriter needs it from the CPA on their letterhead??????? Why don't they just google the K-1 requirements? I bet our CPA firm is scratching their heads when I sent up the request from the broker. STUPID STUPID STUPID. Tom Hollister, CA

So my boss is doing a refi. He is the sole shareholder of the Corporation. The Corp is a C corp. The lender wants copies of the K-1's issued to the owner!!!!!!!!!!! WTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't these stupid frikkin' lenders have a clue about when k-1's are issued? They have the damn tax return. Don't they know the difference between a 1120 and a 1120S. Waste of frikkin' time to work with these idiots. Rant over. Tom Hollister, CA

I think it might be for me. I could use the extra $200. I am going to buy it anyways. Tom Hollister, CA

That is strange, because my wife and I get our PTIN's at exactly the same time every year. I know because she does hers and mine at the same time. I don't even know how to renew my PTIN (I hope there aren't any IRS agents trolling the board). But I got the early renewal notice and she did not. Yes, she is ticked that she has to wait and go get mine early. Tom Hollister, CA

Do not feel bad. I struggled with that form last year for quite a while. When you get it, it works pretty slick, but it is not very intuitive. Maybe we have someone on the board willing to ask the powers that be at ATX to make it a little easier to use. Tom Hollister, CA

Not in this lifetime...but I think the people bringing the suit have a chance of prevailing. The IRS is going to have to show they have the authority to impose the fee. I don't think they have it. But it goes to lawyers now and the ones with the most money on their side will probably win. If the group making the suit has enough resources, it might go through. Look at what happened with the preparer regulations. A good well funded lawyer can do a lot. Tom Hollister, CA

I am with KC. At a minimum, she is in the business of renting space to stylists. Otherwise, what "blue sky" did she buy? Yes on all the expenses (rents, utilities, insurance, etc) related to the buiding she rents out and sublets to the stylists. Yes on the interest on the business loan. Yes on the amoritization of the acquistion costs. All of it goes on the Sch. C. Tom Hollister, CA

I got the e-mail as well saying they are allowing me to get renewed early before it opens to the rest of the world. I will get mine as early as possible and then wait for my refunds if they lawsuit prevails. Tom Hollister, CA

Corporation has a little bit of a mess on its hands. Corporation is a fiscal year filer with a YE on 6/30. Amended 2011 and 2012 returns, 2011 with a balance due of approx 110K and 2012 with a refund of approx 125K. The issue on the amended returns is a timing issue between the years and a minor error on the revenue recognition. IRS accepted the 2011 return with the amount due, and sent the 2012 refund return for review. That was 5 months ago. I have made 2 calls to the IRS and explained the issue, and was told that there would be no collections on the account until the review was done on the second return. Corporation sent in a payment with the extension on 9/15/14 of 100K via EFTPS and designated it for the 2013 return. The 2013 return shows a balance due of 45K paid by the extension payment, 45K to be applied to the estimated taxes for 2014, and a refund of 10K. The 2013 return was e-filed on 9/22. Got a notice yesterday that the IRS took the 100K for the 2011 amended return. Before I call and express my displeasure at the IRS, is what they did correct? Can they take a payment that was clearly designated for one tax year to pay a tax due in another year? Thanks for your help. Tom Hollister, CA

Just want to make sure I am telling my client the right thing. They are purchasing a home with a VA loan. There is a 10K VA funding fee. I know that these were allowed as PMI last year. I think the PMI deduction went away for 2014. Can you please confirm. Thanks Tom Hollister, CA

HRB, Jackson Hewitt and Liberty would see their revenues soar..... Tom Hollister, CA

It is a tax, and the IRS does not have the authority to tax, congress has that authority. Congress has not passed a tax law on tax preparers. This is just another Big Brother intrusion into our profession. We used to have to get recertified every year to e-file. I never had a problem with that. But the whinny little twerps at IRS thought it was too much work to keep that program going, so they passed a tax instead. Typical Washington BS. Don't make us work, pass a tax and make our life easier. They could weed out the rotten preparers with the old program if they did their job. It is not about weeding out bad preparers, it is about taking cash from our pocket to fund their department. Tom Hollister, CA

This pisses me off every year when I have to pay it. Paid preparers have always had to identify themselves on the tax return, and the PTIN just allowed us to not use our SSN on the return. They have turned this into a required registration to use the e-file system that they require us to use. I agree with the plaintiffs and I hope they prevail. This attack on preparers needs to stop. Tom Hollister, CA

When the IRS hands over Lois Lerner and all her e-mails over to the Congress (basically sacrifices her to the Republicans), they will start to get resources back. What Jack said is true. If the Republican House is not happy with the work of the IRS, the only thing they can do in a divided government is cut off funds. This is like a game of chicken right now. The IRS is saying we are going to stop doing the things that you want us to do unless you give us money, and the Republicans are saying if you don't fess up on the Conservative Group Targeting and give us our perp walk, we are going to continue to add work to your plate and expect you to do it for less money. At some point, either the house will go Democrat or the IRS will give the politicians their sacrificial scapegoat. Until then, it is going to be politics as usual at the IRS. Tom Hollister, CA

We should be allowed to complain about the IRS workers....but it would be the same as above. No one would do anything about it. Hell, senators can't even get the email of IRS employees.... Tom Hollister, CA

Is there some history between the members on this thread that I am missing. I don't see anything "snarky" (whatever that is) in any of it. What am I missing from this. The OP was a reprint of an article, and the follow up was about audit percentages. I guess I should be more sensitive to peoples opinions, but this post seems to have some undertones that I don't see. Tom Hollister, CA

I love that we have moved from the politics of this law to the mechanics of it. No matter what our opinion, this is the kinda stuff we need to know for our clients good. Thanks for the discussion. Tom Hollister, CA

I get that at the lower and mid levels of review by the service, they follow the rules a lot more closely. I guess what I was trying to say is that if you have a compelling case with facts and circumstances that are so similar that was ruled in favor of the taxpayer, you should still show it to the auditor. They may, and probably will, disregard it at the first and second levels of review. However, when you file the tax court petition, and you get kicked back to appeals for a final review before tax court, having that case documented in the file when the final review is done by the senior auditor can't hurt. I understand what you all are saying. I am just saying that if you have a case on point, use it. Hell, you might end up in front of the judge who made the ruling on the first case! I am definately going to keep this in my back pocket for future use. De minimis use of a home office for personal reasons (like the crazy crap of personal pictures on the wall or doing your personal bills at your desk) is now allowed by the tax court in my opinion, and I have a judge who ruled in a case to just that fact pattern. Tom Hollister, CA

Yeah, what he said. Seriously, I was always taught to include every case that supports your position in your original dispute letter. The tax court judges are generally considered to be pretty good and pretty fair, so if you show an auditor or revenue officer that a case with similar circumstances to your own was ruled upon in the taxpayer's favor, it will stick in their mind. Especially if you are at appeal before a tax court hearing. It may not be evidentiary, but it shows that you have a case that can win, and that will make an impression. Tom Hollister, CA