User talk:Olycraig

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 Olycraig

This page is where you can leave a message for Olycraig. Olycraig 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 Olycraig, this is your page. Feel free to edit your discussion page to add or remove anything you'd like.

Leave a message for Olycraig by clicking here


contribution of property and 704(b)

Thank you so much for your professional courtesy regarding my confusion on this matter. You have provided me great insiten this matter.

I think I am now about to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I did however have only a couple of simple questions that remain. If you find time to answer I would be greatly appreciate it.

Again sorry for my confusion in this matter.


Again many thanks to you for your professional advice. You have been so kind in following this all the through. It is appreciated

Your edit today

I'm not sure if you realize it, but when you edited your discussion on 1099s today, you deleted posts from two other users. That is prohibited by the TaxAlmanac Code of Conduct. You can edit your own posts all you like, but other than minor formatting/spelling fixes, you should not be editing the posts of others. I was hoping you'd re-edit to put the posts back in, but I can revert the discussion back to a version prior to your edit if you'd rather not do it yourself (I'll check back on it later).


Trillium 12:21, 5 January 2009 (CST)

Good point!

The code of conduct, which is what prohibits users from editing other user's discussion posts (except for minor typos, adding links, etc.), came later than that disclaimer note at the bottom of the page. I think you are the first to notice - or at least to point out - that the disclaimer should now be updated. The wording on the disclaimer is more relevant to the articles, where the intent is that users collaborate to continually improve the end result (as you see on wikipedia) As TA evolved, the discussion forums became more prevalent, and the community developed that code of conduct after a few cases where discussion posts were edited that probably shouldn't have been.

I've got a couple of things on my TaxAlmanac to-do list that are above this, but I'll put "updating the editing disclaimer" on the list as well, as it should definitely be more consistent with the current code of conduct.

Anyway, thanks for understanding.

Trillium 19:33, 29 January 2009 (CST)


The silver, gold, etc. stars were something that Tim Doyle (the moderator from Intuit) used to do when the site was first starting out. He had a program that counted up number of posts per user, and from what I gather, he was trying to recognize those who spent a lot of time here, as part of his goal of creating a viable community. Until today, I don't believe any stars had been "awarded" for quite some time, but really any user could add one subjectively. I see that Kevin's done that for a few of the long-time regulars today - I imagine your post to my talk page was what made him think of it!

If I'm correct that the original stars were earned by post quantity and not quality, then their value might be a little questionable. Later stars might be more likely to have been earned by subjective appreciation from another user, but even then there's inconsistency. I haven't tried, but I imagine you could assign yourself a star if you wanted to. Or get in touch with Tim and see what his current criteria are.

Trillium 15:14, 30 January 2009 (CST)

I gave you a Bronze recognition

based on 1 year membership and <500 posts. If you want to talk, just ask. Kevinh5

Self-Rental Passive Gains and Losses

Thanks for your input. Would you ok with me giving you a call to discuss this matter?PAULHA 07:54, 12 May 2009 (CDT)

Just saw your note to me regarding FTHBC - I have been gone on vacation and at continuing education, so haven't logged in for awhile.

In the situation I addressed, the person involved is a receptionist at one of my business clients, but is not a personal client of mine. Her tax preparer was reluctant to even apply for the credit, so she asked me for my opinion. I believe she and her preparer ultimately applied for the credit, but I would have to check in with her to see if she has gotten any response from the tax authorities. I'll let you know what I find out.Rudy102 11:47, 9 August 2010 (CDT)


Oops - accidentally posted my answer in one of your previous responses. If you can't find it let me know, and I'll resend it.Rudy102 11:50, 9 August 2010 (CDT)

homebuyer credit

I did not have anything in writing regarding this particular situation, just assurance from the callcenter rep at the homebuyer credit hotline that it was fine - not exactly the most definitive source, I know. I am curious about the result of your client's examination - did the credit stand?Khlcpa 15:13, 11 August 2010 (CDT)khlcpa


As a follow-up, I spoke recently to the person who had purchased land from parents and then constructed house on that property. It turns out that she did not file for the credit because her tax preparer was afraid to, since he thought he would be preparing a fraudulent claim.

She and her husband purchased the property at FMV from the father (have documentation to prove it) , and it was vacant land - no structure of any sort on it. They built the new house without any assistance (monetary or otherwise) from the parents and switched the construction loan to a permanent loan on closing.

I cannot see any logical reason why a claim fitting this fact pattern would not be allowed, unless possibly the land cost was included in the basis amount for the credit. What if someone had purchased vacant land at FMV from their parents 5 years ago and now finally decided to build? Would the credit be denied solely because the land was purchased from a family member? Makes no sense to me. But then again, we are dealing with an institution that frequently defies logic.

Were you able to prevail with the examiner?Rudy102 14:36, 17 August 2010 (CDT)

Estate tax valuation

Hi Craig,

Doing research on a 2007 estate full of unimproved property - sounds similar to your estate scenario in 2010. Did you ever amend the return for the new values? What transpired? My estate is only able to sell property at 50-60% of estate value. Does not seem equitable these estates are harmed by the economy - a single beneficiary could never use up all the capital losses in a lifetime. Please let me know if you had any results.

Thanks, Beachymom 13:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Lisa

Your 1099 Schedule E question

Hi, I am going to refer you to two very recent discussions on the topic you just posted about. I think it'll be less confusing for your question to be raised there, rather than on a year-old discussion with - as you noted - outdated info. We've been trying to get the outdated threads out of the primary search, and so I took this opportunity to do just that with the one you bumped (moved it to the archive section of the site - see the FAQ if you want to know more about the archive section).

Check out Discussion:A whole new headache - comments on the new Sched E and Discussion:Argument over 1099s for landlords--repeal, etc...., and please bump one of those with a new post if you want to restart those conversations.


Trillium 01:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools