JohnH

Lion: Your memory is fine - better than mine. I originally said $10,000 but that was my error. I edited it after I saw your post.

This might be a K-1 for Unrelated Business Taxable Income in a Limited Partnership. If so, then if the amount from all Limited Partnerships in all the taxpayers IRAs is over $1,000 you have to obtain a Fed ID# for the IRA and file a Form 990-T because the trustee is dumping that responsibility onto the taxpayer.

If you ever consider having a politician over for dinner, it's wise to remember Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote: "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics." Translation - "The type of care you're entitled to get depends in part on whose ox is being gored." So the Premier decides HIS health is too important to trust to the Canadian system, although he wants to assure us they're still doing their very best for the common folk, but you know it's just so hard to do at times. Seems he had to choose between fair medical care and great medical care, so he jetted off to the US. But that in no way implies that he doesn't have confidence in the Canadian Health Care System. No, not at all - except it's too inconvenient to use when it's his heart that they're tinkering with. And his other choice, had he stayed in Canada, would naturally have been to assert his privilege to jump ahead of the common folk for his procedure - just too messy a situation. If I were a Canadian living in Newfoundland and needed a sternotomy, I'd be livid over this one. Next election, his opponent should use the "Gong Show" analogy to its fullest by suggesting the voters ring the gong on this guy at the ballot box. His next gig should be the "unknown comedian" - if he had any decency he'd already be walking around with a bag over his head. This story has been on Drudge Report for a couple of days, but the mainstream media in the US can't seem to find time to run it. I can't recall when I've seen a blatant hypocrite squirm this much. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA Wonder where our politicians will go when they want the best care after they manage to make our system more like the Canadian system they keep throwing in our faces as an example of what they want to achieve.

Wouldn't work - I'd find some other excuse. But thanks for thinking of me just the same...

And now, the ultimate excuse for not e-filing... E_File_Excuse.pdf

I see your logic, but I think the net effect of priming the multiplier pump with hundreds of thousand of dollars that never existed is precisely what caused the 2008 collapes. (Except the government manipulated the lending markets indirectly rather than via a direct subsidy). When it became painfully obvious that those dollars didn't exist, the economic system collapsed and the government had to create a situation where we pretend that they exist, even though they still don't. (We called this TARP, which I thought was appropriate since a tarp is a piece of fabric whose purpose is to cover something up) I think what you left out of your car example is the free market (flawed though it is). You'll budget money to buy a car that serves your transportation & emotional needs and you'll try your best to negotiate a price that will leave you enough dollars for a wide-screen TV or a pizza when you leave the dealership. A bureaucrat will use your money to buy a car that meets all 1,000 requirements contained in his 50-page spec manual produced by a committee, even if it is funtionally useless, aesthetically ugly, and costs a fortune (just as long as it's "in the budget"). That is, unless he is expected to personally drive it, in which case he'll have it tricked out with all the latest gadgets & options, even if he never intends to use them. I just don't buy into the idea that the government can meddle in the markets and produce a desirable result. It always produces distortions. Some are a nuisance, but others can lead us over the precipice.

So the accelerator & multiplier effect only works with housing. Interesting economic theory there - giveaways good/tax cuts bad. Since it's NEW money and it's being CREATED, why ever have an end to such a magic program? Seems like we ought to just keep creating this new money indefinitely.

I'm telling them we will have to efling next year, provided I'm still doing tax work at that time. I also tell them that if there's an opt-out provided, I'll be sending them the form as soon as it's ready.

Thanks everybody. I'm still saying the same thing I did last year: "If I'd known I was going to live this long I'd have taken better care of myself"

I'd put the $1 on Schedule B and $16 on a Schedule D with zero basis and force it to report as short-term gain. Then move on to the next return. That's what I do with most of these cheesy settlements, including one I received personally in 2008 and 2009 installments. And, as Jerry Mealer used to say, I leave it at that "even if I never see the back of my neck again."

And you say, "Let's wrap up this audit with 'no changes' and then I'll be glad to explain IRC Sec 183 to you."

Hey, I like that. Thanks for the tip, Taxbilly.

I would put in on Line 21 with no schedule SE, along with a good explanatory notation on the line saying something to the effect "Military Recruitment Bonus". He's not in the business of recruiting, so I see it as an award. Not sying IRS won't question it since it's in box 7, but at the end of the day it's facts & circumstances that control, not what box someone chose to use.

I agree in principle, but in my opinion there's a slightly different order. Western Civlization is built of concrete & steel, but it's all held together by duct tape and Velcro.

Yes, that would be the other side of the coin, woulnd't it?

I do think it's important to put things in perspective. While I agree philosphically that it isn't a good idea to let the government hold one's money, it's a pretty good alternative for someone who doesn't have the discipline to save. The forced savings represented by the tax refund at least gives them a chance to accumulate a few dollars, even if they blow it at year end. Assuming a $5,000 refund, and acknowledging that a money market account currently pays about 3/4 of 1%, that means that a $5,000 tax refund costs the individual $18.75 in foregone interest. (I assumed that the $5,000 went into the account in equal installments throughout the year. Paying $18.75 to put that $5,000 aside is virtually irrelevant, especially since they sometimes pay $180 or so to get their hand on the money via a RAL).

ATX - 8 overall (9 for value - I agree with Tom on this) Microvision - 9 overall (price is problematic - maybe a 2 or 3 for value) Drake - 8 overall (based on evaluation only) Tax Slayer Pro - 5 overall (based on evaluation only)

It's always a good idea to spot-check the current year's mortgage interest against the previous year. Even better, check the change in the interest deduction going back two years. There will be a discernible pattern unless there's been a significant principal payment or a change in the rate. This also helps flush out a refi that the client forgot to mention, in which case there may be points to amortize and/or unamortized points to write off from a previous refi. As Pacun & Taxbilly pointed out, the opportunity to mess this up increases with the number of mortgages being sold, takeovers, upheaval in the industry, and certain lenders...

Reminds me of the redneck who took his wife deer hunting for the first time. He was getting her all set up in the tree stand when he realized he had left one gun back at the truck. As he's leaving to go back & get the other gun, she asks "What do I do if I see a deer?" He replies that it could be hours before a deer comes along, but if she sees one just go ahead and shoot it. Then he says, "There's lots of hunters out here today and sometimes people get into a fuss over who shot the deer. If anything like that happens, shoot in the air twice and I'll hurry back." He's halfwayback to his truck when he hears a shot ring out. Then he hears two more shots. Worried that she may be in some sort of argument with another hunter, he runs back to the spot. He finds the game warden standing with his hands high in the air, staring up at the redneck's wife in the tree stand, and she with her gun aimed at the game warden. Then he hears the game warden saying "OK lady, you're right - it's your deer. I'll be moving along, but first let me get my saddle off him."

Now I'm worried. If NCDR gives out telephone tax advice that agrees with us, that's reason for concern.

I've been researching that question as well. NC uses Fed taxable income as a jumping off point, and then we are given certain add-backs for situations in which NC doesn't conform to the Fed. (The addtion to standard deduction for property taxes, for example). I can't find anything which addresses the question directly, but in the absence of specific insructions to do so, I'm not making any adjustment on the NC return for the $2,400 unemployment compensation. ATX doesn't adjust it either.

I'll add a comment to KC's based on a couple of past experiences. I called IRS in two different situations with the client conferenced in on the line and had no trouble getting the installment agreement amended to include the current year's liablity. Just lay out the circumstances and ask for the collection agent's help, being sure to let the client know they should also maintain that attitude while on the phone. The main thing to consider is if the amount owed is under $25K and the payment amount requested will pay off the balance (including P&I which will accrue), over 5 years. (Dividing the amount owed by 43 will give you a good approximation of the minimum payment they will accept). Meet those tests and approval is virtually automatic, although they willl charge a new installment agreement fee to do the reset. If you get a cranky collections person the first try, find a reason to end the call and then try again later. No sense wating your time on a power-hungry jerk when there are plenty of very nice people working for IRS.

For a small amount like this, I'd put it on Schedule D, use "Various" for the acquisition date, and force it as "Short Term Gain". This covers most of the bases and generates the right tax liability (unless there happen to be capital loss carryforwards).

Let me get back to you on that. Tonight I'l try hanging the coats & jackets on the toaster & see how it works out. However, I won't move the shoes off the belt because then my wife will start nagging me to actually USE the treadmill now that it's been cleaned off.