User talk:Cindylee

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search
Leave a message for Cindylee

This page is where you can leave a message for Cindylee. Cindylee will be notified of messages the next time they access TaxAlmanac.

Please make sure to sign your message by adding four tildes: ~~~~ at the end of your message.

If you are actually Cindylee, this is your page. Feel free to edit your discussion page to add or remove anything you'd like.

Leave a message for Cindylee by clicking here


I would simply do nothing and file as is or if you feel more comfortable, put 30K on a schedule C, do not send a 1099.

Subject the 30K to SE Tax with no deductions.

If you do that, you are exposing yourself as YOU made the decisionon the 30K. For that reason the client needs to acknowledge their understanding in writing.

S corp interest

Hey CindyLee! Yes, I'd amend, and it won't raise red flags, you're just matching properly. As to current interest, it doesn't go on the K1 anywhere, just page one of the 1120S if expense, and line 4 of the K if income.... JR1Jeff

Thanks No problem

No problem, appreciate the thanks....RoyDaleOne


Hi Cindy

You left me a message but I find TA as a communicative tool frustrating and slow but I am happy to help. E mail me directly web is

my e mail is matt@my web site

helps reduce spam to not spell it out.


Andersen alumni

Hi Cindy,

Nice to see another Andersen alumna here! I was in the SALT group at Andersen for 14 years, based in the San Diego office and then telecommuted to St. Charles from home. I retired in October 2001, about the time they were having the shredding parties in Houston. Little did we know!

I didn't know many people on the audit side, so I doubt if our paths ever crossed.

Anyway ... welcome aboard. KatieJ 20:12, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

S corp owner's Health Ins/W2's

Hey Cindy. Sorry for delayed response...May finally hits and I'm gone....!

I would not bother changing anything at this point. The Notice affects 08 and on, and obviously, a safe harbor if we used that technique for 07. But I wouldn't lose a wink over it. The original headliner still has/had no basis in law, it would be tough to imagine an auditor challenging 07 as long as in 08 and beyond you do the right thing. Jeff JR1

S's and Health

CindyLee, the Notice is effective for 2008. Naturally, any God-fearing American figured that using those rules for 2007 was a safe play. But it wasn't required. You had a reasonable basis for doing it the old way, it comes out the same, so don't worry about it one bit. I didn't.

Double-posted questions

It's going to get confusing, fast, if people start to try to address your C-corp S/H auto expense issue over on Wiles's Discussion:Audit - Constructive Dividend to SH|constructive dividends discussion]]. Some of the responses will be made based only on the brief recap you gave on the constr div discussion, without any knowledge of the additional situations discussed on your original discussion, and may therefore diverge from responses you've received previously (you lose the benefit of having all responses build on what came previously). Also, there are always one or two who respond to the original post (the question at the top of the discussion), rather than to the new question posted at the end.

Therefore, I'm going to try to rearrange things a little in an attempt to minimize the confusion and maximize the benefit.

My thought is - I'll move your entire new post over to your original C-corp S/H auto exp discussion, with an edit at the top that refers to the info in the constructive dividend discussion. And then, in the constructive dividend discussion, I'll post a link to your C-corp S/H auto exp discussion, with a note that some of the same issues may be in the process of being explored there. That way, those interested will tend to go to your discussion to get the facts and background, and will post any recommendations for you in your discussion, and any new recommendations for Wiles will go in that other discussion. Sound logical?

Let's see how it works.

Trillium 17:56, 7 October 2010 (CDT)

Your summons topic

Cindylee – unfortunately, to comply with the Code of Conduct, you can’t actually remove a topic and all of the responses. You can edit your own posts, either bluntly by simply removing them (not really recommended, as it sometimes attracts more attention that way), or with some explanation like “my lawyer has advised me to not discuss this outside his/her office for the time being, but thanks very much for all the input” (or whatever your actual reason is) pasted in to each of your own posts in place of what had originally been there.

If you need help on editing, see the FAQ, or send me another note.

Sorry that there isn’t really a possibility of removing the entire discussion. There is a way that I can remove it from the tax forum discussion index, but even then it'll still appear in the "all topics" forum index. The advantages to that would be that only some percentage of the readers use the "all topics" index, while most read the tax forum itself, and also dormant discussions move over to page 2 of the "all topics" index more quickly, making them less likely to get bumped back to the top of the page with a new response. Let me know if you'd like me to do that.

Trillium 15:19, 22 October 2010 (CDT)

Your RDP home office question

Hi, Cindylee - I noticed your question to DLS, but since DLS only posted a few times and hasn't been back for a year, I thought I'd steer you to a discussion that might be helpful. As others have said in the past, H/W issues in CP states often provide guidance for how to handle an RDP issue, and to that end, check out the Sec. 1402(a)(5) cite Riley provides here: Discussion:Husband and Wife Business Schedule C vs 1065. Of course, your situation is an employee vs a self-employed person, but just figured it might be a lead (maybe a better idea would be to search on H/W office-in-home situations in CP states).

Hope that helps,

Trillium 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Orange County CPA

Cindy, I only looked at your profile after sending you Chuck DeWalt's info. I did not even realize you were an Arthur alum. I spent my whole career there, and there are not sufficient words to describe my sadness at what happened (and why it didn't need to.

Now, as to DeWalt. I started in the Philadelphia office in 1958 (yes, that is not a typo) and Chuck was maybe 2 to 4 years later. Point is, we are both geezers. I have no doubt whatever that he can help you or your client - he is smart, practical, and experienced. I do not know for sure that he is still in practice, but I think so. He is a character, but in a good way. If you contact him, let me know how it goes.

BTW, there are a surprising number of AA alums on TA.

Personal tools