TaxAlmanac - Recent changes [en]

Discussion:Drop Land Line?

CrowJD — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:33:18 GMT

Revision as of 04:33, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 40:		Line 40:

	Crow and Scriv, thanks for you carefully considered advice. I hope others will treat you with the same degree of thoughtfulness and respect.}}		Crow and Scriv, thanks for you carefully considered advice. I hope others will treat you with the same degree of thoughtfulness and respect.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=CrowJD\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I have never been treated like that. Does he not know that I was serious? Every thing I mentioned is based on a published case! I don't want to see a fellow professional end up in the "News of the Wierd" column.}}

User talk:GEORGEP

Trillium — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:56:01 GMT

Your question may be moved

Revision as of 03:56, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{UserTalkPageHeader}}		{{UserTalkPageHeader}}
		+
		+	== Your question may be moved ==
		+
		+	Your question may be moved to the [[Discussion Forum - Consumer Questions\|Consumer Questions Discussion Forum]] because you have not updated your profile to provide any information about your level of experience/background as a professional tax preparer. As a result, your question may be perceived as not complying with the guidelines established for TaxAlmanac and the tax forum, which are intended for use by tax professionals only. (This is consistent with the info in Step 2 of the four steps to "asking a new tax question.)
		+
		+	If you '''are''' a tax professional, please update your [[profile]] (user page), to provide some info about your experience level/background as a tax professional. Select edit at the top of that page, replace the boilerplate with your info, and then click Save page.
		+
		+	Your level of experience may be an important consideration when users are developing an appropriate answer for your questions. Beyond that, though, some users won’t respond at all if your profile hasn’t been updated, and as you’ve seen, having no profile leaves your question subject to being moved out of the professional tax forum. (Once your profile has been updated, one of the moderators can move your question back to the professional tax forum if that’s appropriate.)
		+
		+	Note – updating your profile is just one of the four steps in “asking a new tax question” – if you skipped any of the other steps as well (e.g., searching the archives, familiarizing yourself with TaxAlmanac), please do that now, too.
		+
		+	If you '''are not''' a tax professional, please ask your question on the TurboTax website or consult your tax advisor. If you don't have a tax profesional that you work with regularly, information about finding a local tax advisor can be found here: [[Discussion:How to find a local Tax Professional\|How to find a local Tax Professional]].
		+
		+	[[User:Trillium\|Trillium]] 21:56, 25 November 2009 (CST)

Discussion:Gifts split

R2 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:42:56 GMT

Revision as of 03:42, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 4:		Line 4:
	{{ForumNewPost\|UserID=GEORGEP\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I have a client who is an LLC. The LLC owns a rental real estate. The two members of the LLC is a husband and a wife who each one owns 50% interest in the LLC. Now the husband want to transfer $13,000 worth of his interest in the LLC to his son. The wife wants to transfer $13,000 of her interest to the son as well. Does this considered to be gift splitting and therefore having to file a gift tax returns? Thanks. }}		{{ForumNewPost\|UserID=GEORGEP\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I have a client who is an LLC. The LLC owns a rental real estate. The two members of the LLC is a husband and a wife who each one owns 50% interest in the LLC. Now the husband want to transfer $13,000 worth of his interest in the LLC to his son. The wife wants to transfer $13,000 of her interest to the son as well. Does this considered to be gift splitting and therefore having to file a gift tax returns? Thanks. }}

-	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=R2\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=No, this is not gift splitting. An example of gift-splitting would be if husband transferred $26,000 of his separate property to his son and the husband and his wife agree to report one-half of the gift on each gift tax return.}}	+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=R2\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=No, this is not gift splitting. An example of gift-splitting would be if husband transferred $100,000 of his separate property to his son and the husband and his wife agree to report one-half of the gift on each gift tax return.}}

Discussion:Drop Land Line?

Sbcpa — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:41:30 GMT

Good thoughts So

Revision as of 03:41, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 36:		Line 36:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Scrivenerjones\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=A tin can and a string should be a fully deductible business expense. But the drive to prospective clients' houses to give them the can on the other end are commuting miles, so no deduction there.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Scrivenerjones\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=A tin can and a string should be a fully deductible business expense. But the drive to prospective clients' houses to give them the can on the other end are commuting miles, so no deduction there.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Sbcpa\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Good thoughts Southpark. I've been at this long enough that I am not in the marketing mode - no yellow page listing, no advertising, etc. It's essentially a closed practice. So I'm not really concerned about appearances. In this area, and in this economy, I think clients appreciate a CPA who is percieved as thrifty and effecient. I'm more concerned with any experience anyone has had with the logistics of dropping their land line.
		+
		+	Crow and Scriv, thanks for you carefully considered advice. I hope others will treat you with the same degree of thoughtfulness and respect.}}

Discussion:Gifts split

R2 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:40:58 GMT

No, this is not

Revision as of 03:40, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 3:		Line 3:

	{{ForumNewPost\|UserID=GEORGEP\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I have a client who is an LLC. The LLC owns a rental real estate. The two members of the LLC is a husband and a wife who each one owns 50% interest in the LLC. Now the husband want to transfer $13,000 worth of his interest in the LLC to his son. The wife wants to transfer $13,000 of her interest to the son as well. Does this considered to be gift splitting and therefore having to file a gift tax returns? Thanks. }}		{{ForumNewPost\|UserID=GEORGEP\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I have a client who is an LLC. The LLC owns a rental real estate. The two members of the LLC is a husband and a wife who each one owns 50% interest in the LLC. Now the husband want to transfer $13,000 worth of his interest in the LLC to his son. The wife wants to transfer $13,000 of her interest to the son as well. Does this considered to be gift splitting and therefore having to file a gift tax returns? Thanks. }}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=R2\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=No, this is not gift splitting. An example of gift-splitting would be if husband transferred $26,000 of his separate property to his son and the husband and his wife agree to report one-half of the gift on each gift tax return.}}

Discussion:Homebuyer Credit-Taxpayer Name not on closing statement

CrowJD — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:36:01 GMT

Revision as of 03:36, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 59:		Line 59:
	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=CrowJD\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=By God, if it keeps going like this, only two people in the country will fail to take the credit this year.		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=CrowJD\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=By God, if it keeps going like this, only two people in the country will fail to take the credit this year.

-	Why do I get the feeling that this is just another way to recycle useless property, until it falls another 20%, then the new buyers let it go, someone buys it, takes a credit, and it falls another 20%. And yet, the property comes off some lender's foreclosed housing inventory (temporarily), and all the "right" parties get a commission.	+	Why do I get the feeling that this is just another way to recycle useless property, until it falls another 20%, then the new buyers let it go, someone buys it, takes a credit, and it falls another 20%, they let it go... And yet, the property comes off some lender's foreclosed housing inventory (temporarily), and all the "right" parties get a commission.

	}}		}}

Discussion:CA Landlords - security deposit question . . .

R2 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:35:23 GMT

If the auditor h

Revision as of 03:35, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 25:		Line 25:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=MAPBUSINESS\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=could you please, Riley2, give reference about current law and security deposit. Auditor wants to make an adjustment on security deposits because not held in separate account (California)}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=MAPBUSINESS\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=could you please, Riley2, give reference about current law and security deposit. Auditor wants to make an adjustment on security deposits because not held in separate account (California)}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=R2\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=If the auditor has lots of time on his hands, let him read the US Supreme Court decision in Commissioner v. Indianapolis P & L, 493 U.S. 203 (1990.
		+
		+	He should also look at Rev Rul 72-519 and Rev Rul 82-28.
		+
		+	If the auditor is really pressed for time, then let him look at Internal Revenue Service Pub 527, page 3.
		+	}}

Discussion:Homebuyer Credit-Taxpayer Name not on closing statement

CrowJD — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:34:58 GMT

Revision as of 03:34, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 58:		Line 58:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=CrowJD\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=By God, if it keeps going like this, only two people in the country will fail to take the credit this year.		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=CrowJD\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=By God, if it keeps going like this, only two people in the country will fail to take the credit this year.
		+
		+	Why do I get the feeling that this is just another way to recycle useless property, until it falls another 20%, then the new buyers let it go, someone buys it, takes a credit, and it falls another 20%. And yet, the property comes off some lender's foreclosed housing inventory (temporarily), and all the "right" parties get a commission.

	}}		}}

Discussion:Small business tip - don't use a CPA

TRcpa — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:34:09 GMT

I think its just

Revision as of 03:34, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 37:		Line 37:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Snowbird\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I think I have been reading too many of Crow's postings. Why when I see "a former “Big Four” auditor in Texas ", does the first thing that comes to mind is Arthur Andersen and Enron? }}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Snowbird\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I think I have been reading too many of Crow's postings. Why when I see "a former “Big Four” auditor in Texas ", does the first thing that comes to mind is Arthur Andersen and Enron? }}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=TRcpa\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I think its just to broad an recommendation. CPA, EA's, tax preparer prices can range so greatly whos to say your overpaying. I have seen cases where client are being oversold services or not given adequate recommendations to help them save money, in which case I would agree.
		+
		+	Most of my client basis consists of these types of clients and really what they want is to ensure compliance, attention to their requests, reasonable turn around time, and tax savings recommendations when possible. If money is their sole determining factor perhaps they should price shop and find the cheapest guy. If they want the overall warm and fuzzies then they should be willing to pay. I'm willing to bet they are not going to receive the same level of service with would probably amount to a few hundred in savings. Like most successful CPA's I know I provide a very good service and expect to be compensated for it.}}

Discussion:Homebuyer Credit-Taxpayer Name not on closing statement

CrowJD — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:30:52 GMT

By God, if it ke

Revision as of 03:30, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 56:		Line 56:

	On the other hand, Quixotic has clearly suggested the best solution, and likely also the easiest one.}}		On the other hand, Quixotic has clearly suggested the best solution, and likely also the easiest one.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=CrowJD\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=By God, if it keeps going like this, only two people in the country will fail to take the credit this year.
		+
		+	}}

Discussion:Small business tip - don't use a CPA

Snowbird — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:26:00 GMT

I think I have b

Revision as of 03:26, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 35:		Line 35:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Natalie\|Date=November 26, 2009\|Text=Okay. I feel left out. Every time I try to go to either link on this page, all I get is a blank page with "Done" in the corner. I tried it in Firefox and IE.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Natalie\|Date=November 26, 2009\|Text=Okay. I feel left out. Every time I try to go to either link on this page, all I get is a blank page with "Done" in the corner. I tried it in Firefox and IE.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Snowbird\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I think I have been reading too many of Crow's postings. Why when I see "a former “Big Four” auditor in Texas ", does the first thing that comes to mind is Arthur Andersen and Enron? }}

Discussion:Gifts split

GEORGEP — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:24:22 GMT

New Discussion

New page

{{Basic Tax Questions}}


{{ForumNewPost|UserID=GEORGEP|Date=26 November 2009|Text=I have a client who is an LLC. The LLC owns a rental real estate. The two members of the LLC is a husband and a wife who each one owns 50% interest in the LLC. Now the husband want to transfer $13,000 worth of his interest in the LLC to his son. The wife wants to transfer $13,000 of her interest to the son as well. Does this considered to be gift splitting and therefore having to file a gift tax returns? Thanks. }}

User talk:Actionbsns

CrowJD — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:18:23 GMT

Here's an article

Revision as of 03:18, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 374:		Line 374:

	[[User:Wonder Woman USA\|Wonder Woman USA]] 14:51, 23 November 2009 (CST)		[[User:Wonder Woman USA\|Wonder Woman USA]] 14:51, 23 November 2009 (CST)
		+
		+	== Here's an article ==
		+
		+	Action: here's an article I thought it might get lost in all the words over there.
		+
		+	http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/YourCreditRating/weston-credit-card-lenders-go-on-a-rampage.aspx
		+
		+	Take care, and good luck. [[User:CrowJD\|CrowJD]] 21:18, 25 November 2009 (CST)

Discussion:Homebuyer Credit-Taxpayer Name not on closing statement

SCCPA — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:16:28 GMT

Revision as of 03:16, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 53:		Line 53:
	It is an interesting question, but I'd prefer to ignore the interesting question and go for expedient, if you can. Save the creativity for when you really need it.}}		It is an interesting question, but I'd prefer to ignore the interesting question and go for expedient, if you can. Save the creativity for when you really need it.}}

-	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=SCCPA\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I don't believe that the taxpayer needs to be on the closing documents where title is transferred to cousin and mother, so long as he purchased the property. In his case, his "closing documents" may be not much more than a quit claim deed to him, with proof it was recorded, and proof that he paid the down payment. I also see no reason why the taxpayer needs to be on the mortgage if he has title to the property.	+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=SCCPA\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I don't believe that the taxpayer needs to be on the closing documents where title is transferred to cousin and mother, so long as he purchased the property. In his case, his "closing documents" may be not much more than a quit claim deed to him, with proof it was recorded, and proof that he paid the down payment. While again, I would hope the original poster would come back and clarify the facts, the stated facts are that the taxpayer purchased the property with his own funds. I also see no reason why the taxpayer needs to be on the mortgage if he has title to the property.

	On the other hand, Quixotic has clearly suggested the best solution, and likely also the easiest one.}}		On the other hand, Quixotic has clearly suggested the best solution, and likely also the easiest one.}}

User talk:JasmineCPA

Davidcpa — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:12:13 GMT

Be careful

Revision as of 03:12, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{UserTalkPageHeader}}		{{UserTalkPageHeader}}
		+
		+	== Be careful ==
		+
		+	OK - the history behind my comments about quitting. When I was in my mid-late 20's, I worked for a large local firm. I saw some things going on that made me nervous. Managers/Partners told me everything was fine. There is no problem. We are covered...engagement letters, management rep letters, we have documentation, etc... I decided to leave the firm. Several people told me I was over-reacting. It is no big deal.
		+
		+	About a year later, all heck breaks loose. Bankruptcies, IRS audits, civil lawsuits and criminal charges against the client. CPA firm and partners named in lawsuits. Then criminal charges against partner, mgr and staff on the job. When it was all said & done, client went to jail, a partner was convicted, a sr mgr & supervisor lost their license and CPA firm went bankrupt.
		+
		+	[[User:Davidcpa\|Davidcpa]] 21:12, 25 November 2009 (CST)

Discussion:Homebuyer Credit-Taxpayer Name not on closing statement

SCCPA — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:11:59 GMT

I don't believe

Revision as of 03:11, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 52:		Line 52:

	It is an interesting question, but I'd prefer to ignore the interesting question and go for expedient, if you can. Save the creativity for when you really need it.}}		It is an interesting question, but I'd prefer to ignore the interesting question and go for expedient, if you can. Save the creativity for when you really need it.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=SCCPA\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I don't believe that the taxpayer needs to be on the closing documents where title is transferred to cousin and mother, so long as he purchased the property. In his case, his "closing documents" may be not much more than a quit claim deed to him, with proof it was recorded, and proof that he paid the down payment. I also see no reason why the taxpayer needs to be on the mortgage if he has title to the property.
		+
		+	On the other hand, Quixotic has clearly suggested the best solution, and likely also the easiest one.}}

Discussion:Available Credit Slashed

CrowJD — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:11:50 GMT

Here's an articl

Revision as of 03:11, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 63:		Line 63:
	P.S. By the way Snowbird, I'm sure you've noticed that Obama has been talking a balanced budget since he got back from China. By Golly, we've been put under an austerity plan. lol. The Chinese helped Obama read the tea leaves. But, what gripes me, is that we go into the austerity plan AFTER having gone in such debt to make sure the Wall Street boys could still live large. It's disgusting, but with the insiders involved in both Administrations, not surprising.		P.S. By the way Snowbird, I'm sure you've noticed that Obama has been talking a balanced budget since he got back from China. By Golly, we've been put under an austerity plan. lol. The Chinese helped Obama read the tea leaves. But, what gripes me, is that we go into the austerity plan AFTER having gone in such debt to make sure the Wall Street boys could still live large. It's disgusting, but with the insiders involved in both Administrations, not surprising.
	}}		}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=CrowJD\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Here's an article today from MSN's Money Central:
		+
		+	"Credit Card Lenders Go on a Rampage"
		+
		+
		+	http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/YourCreditRating/weston-credit-card-lenders-go-on-a-rampage.aspx}}

User talk:GEORGEP

GEORGEP — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:08:37 GMT

Default new user talk page

New page

User:GEORGEP

GEORGEP — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:08:37 GMT

Default new user page

New page

[[Image:Nopic.JPG|frame|left|{{PAGENAME}}]] '''Hello, my name is John Doe and I go by the nickname {{PAGENAME}}'''. I must be fairly new here as I haven't yet entered my real information on this page to help others better judge who I am. I'll get to it eventually though, perhaps adding information such as whether I am a CPA, an EA, etc., where I practice, my areas of expertise, and also perhaps a little about me personally.

If you'd like to leave me a message, just select the discussion tab at the top of this page.

Thank you!

{{PAGENAME}}



{{Template:Note to New Users}}

Discussion:Drop Land Line?

Scrivenerjones — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:07:18 GMT

A tin can and a

Revision as of 03:07, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 34:		Line 34:

	Don't use the cell phone. You'll get brain cancer. }}		Don't use the cell phone. You'll get brain cancer. }}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Scrivenerjones\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=A tin can and a string should be a fully deductible business expense. But the drive to prospective clients' houses to give them the can on the other end are commuting miles, so no deduction there.}}

Discussion:Transfer ownership of LLC by individual to that of a Corporation

Aguthrie — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:07:15 GMT

After the amendm

Revision as of 03:07, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 34:		Line 34:
	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Harry Boscoe\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=It's been a long time, but as I remember it, Section 351 applies whether or not the "required" statement is filed with the return, and there's no penalty for failure to file the "required" statement.		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Harry Boscoe\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=It's been a long time, but as I remember it, Section 351 applies whether or not the "required" statement is filed with the return, and there's no penalty for failure to file the "required" statement.
	Am I hallucinating, misremembering, or otherwise showing my age and related memory deficiencies? Is there quite simply no downside to not attaching all this information to the affected return(s)? Has anybody here been challenged on this? }}		Am I hallucinating, misremembering, or otherwise showing my age and related memory deficiencies? Is there quite simply no downside to not attaching all this information to the affected return(s)? Has anybody here been challenged on this? }}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Aguthrie\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=After the amendment they made to 351 in 08 or so it looks like a pretty simple statement that needs to be added on to the tax returns of the transferor and transferee. One issue is that the S-corporation taking ownership of the LLC isn't really worth anything yet, so I'm not sure how much stock they'll have to issue in exchange for the transfer of ownership and assets. Assets are about 15k in Cash, 35k in Inventory. Any ideas?}}

Discussion:Equitable Relief - Missed Deadline

R2 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:00:17 GMT

Revision as of 03:00, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 44:		Line 44:
	}}		}}

-	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=R2\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=The 6330 notice was issued 4/4/07. This would start the clock.}}	+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=R2\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=The 6330 notice was issued 3/24/07. This would start the clock.}}

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=NYea\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=BestGuess		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=NYea\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=BestGuess
Line 57:		Line 57:

	}}		}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=R2\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I understand that IRS is not following the Lantz decision. See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-ccdm/cc-2009-012.pdf
		+
		+	Does anyone know if the regulations are going to be revised?}}

Discussion:C-Corp which hasn't filed since 2004

Davidcpa — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:53:51 GMT

Yeah - I thought

Revision as of 02:53, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 250:		Line 250:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Natalie\|Date=November 26, 2009\|Text=I stand corrected. Man, you guys were just posting so fast. By the time I had one of my posts done, there were four or five in between!}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Natalie\|Date=November 26, 2009\|Text=I stand corrected. Man, you guys were just posting so fast. By the time I had one of my posts done, there were four or five in between!}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Davidcpa\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Yeah - I thought for a minute I was watching my daughter's facebook messaging!}}

Discussion:Small business tip - don't use a CPA

Natalie — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:50:37 GMT

Okay. I feel le

Revision as of 02:50, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 33:		Line 33:

	}}		}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Natalie\|Date=November 26, 2009\|Text=Okay. I feel left out. Every time I try to go to either link on this page, all I get is a blank page with "Done" in the corner. I tried it in Firefox and IE.}}

User talk:Beavos88

Trillium — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:48:12 GMT

your question may be moved

Revision as of 02:48, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{UserTalkPageHeader}}		{{UserTalkPageHeader}}

-	== Contingent Sale..Earnout Payments Not to Be Received ==	+	== Your question may be moved ==

-	Hello,	+	Your question may be moved to the [[Discussion Forum - Consumer Questions\|Consumer Questions Discussion Forum]] because you have not updated your profile to provide any information about your level of experience/background as a professional tax preparer. You seem to have edited the boilerplate to remove the "I am a CPA" part, without actually adding anything about what you actually are - tax pro, not a tax pro, EA, not an EA, level of experience, etc. As a result, your question may be perceived as not complying with the guidelines established for TaxAlmanac and the tax forum, which are intended for use by tax professionals only. (This is consistent with the info in Step 2 of the four steps to "asking a new tax question.)

-	I am new here. And Happy Thanksgiving.	+	If you '''are''' a tax professional, please update your [[profile]] (user page), to provide some info about your experience level/background as a tax professional. Select edit at the top of that page, replace the boilerplate with your info, and then click Save page.

-	My client owned some preferred and common stock in a company and it was bought out (merger) by another company in 2008. Based on the merger agreement, They get some money at closing, then, the deal is structured on earnouts on a quarterly basis throughout 2009 (cumulatively). The earnout period ends at 12/31/09. The last payment date of any escrows or earnouts is 1/10/10. The client did receive initial payment at closing in 2008 and the first escrow in the first quarter of 2009. The second quarter earnouts are being disputed and probably will not be paid out. The client has been told by a good source that they have not achieved(and will not achieve) the 3rd and 4th earnouts based on the financials in 2009.	+	Your level of experience may be an important consideration when users are developing an appropriate answer for your questions. Beyond that, though, some users won’t respond at all if your profile hasn’t been updated, and as you’ve seen, having no profile leaves your question subject to being moved out of the professional tax forum. (Once your profile has been updated, one of the moderators can move your question back to the professional tax forum if that’s appropriate.)

-	We elected out of the installment sale and reported the maximum selling price for the preferreds in 2008. And if there was any earnouts received in 2009 or 2010, we'd just report the receipts as income.	+	Note – updating your profile is just one of the four steps in “asking a new tax question” – if you skipped any of the other steps as well (e.g., searching the archives, familiarizing yourself with TaxAlmanac), please do that now, too.

-	The commons were reported at a loss with the maximum selling price in 2008.	+	If you '''are not''' a tax professional, please ask your question on the TurboTax website or consult your tax advisor. If you don't have a tax profesional that you work with regularly, information about finding a local tax advisor can be found here: [[Discussion:How to find a local Tax Professional\|How to find a local Tax Professional]].

-	Questions: When can we take a loss for the earnouts that we did not receive where the earnout period ends at 12/31/09, though the final payment date out of escrow is 1/10/10? Is there any backup for this? I'm having a hard time going through the regs in regards to installment sales.	+	[[User:Trillium\|Trillium]] 20:48, 25 November 2009 (CST)
-		+
-	Though the client elected out of installment sale for the preferreds and there is a loss for the commons, do I still follow IRC 453 and the regs since this sale has contingent (earnout) payments?	+
-		+
-	Basically, this is a timing issue and I can't find anything on point. I know this is simple but......help!	+
-		+
-	Thanks,	+

Discussion:C-Corp which hasn't filed since 2004

Natalie — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:45:15 GMT

I stand correcte

Revision as of 02:45, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 248:		Line 248:

	Kevin - thanks for your yellow box work. Some interesting threads.}}		Kevin - thanks for your yellow box work. Some interesting threads.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Natalie\|Date=November 26, 2009\|Text=I stand corrected. Man, you guys were just posting so fast. By the time I had one of my posts done, there were four or five in between!}}

Discussion:Available Credit Slashed

CrowJD — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:42:23 GMT

Revision as of 02:42, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 60:		Line 60:

	We need to let some of these zombie banks go ahead and fail, and the sooner, the better. Any depositor in them for more than 250K deserves what they will get at this point. A CEO might actually lose his vacation home: horrors.		We need to let some of these zombie banks go ahead and fail, and the sooner, the better. Any depositor in them for more than 250K deserves what they will get at this point. A CEO might actually lose his vacation home: horrors.
		+
		+	P.S. By the way Snowbird, I'm sure you've noticed that Obama has been talking a balanced budget since he got back from China. By Golly, we've been put under an austerity plan. lol. The Chinese helped Obama read the tea leaves. But, what gripes me, is that we go into the austerity plan AFTER having gone in such debt to make sure the Wall Street boys could still live large. It's disgusting, but with the insiders involved in both Administrations, not surprising.
	}}		}}

Discussion:Contingent Sale - Not gonna receive earnouts

Beavos88 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:37:53 GMT

New Discussion

New page

{{Advanced Tax Questions}}


{{ForumNewPost|UserID=Beavos88|Date=26 November 2009|Text=Hello,

I am new here. And Happy Thanksgiving.

My client owned some preferred and common stock in a company and it was bought out (merger) by another company in 2008. Based on the merger agreement, They get some money at closing, then, the deal is structured on earnouts on a quarterly basis throughout 2009 (cumulatively). The earnout period ends at 12/31/09. The last payment date of any escrows or earnouts is 1/10/10. The client did receive initial payment at closing in 2008 and the first escrow in the first quarter of 2009. The second quarter earnouts are being disputed and probably will not be paid out. The client has been told by a good source that they have not achieved(and will not achieve) the 3rd and 4th earnouts based on the financials in 2009.

We elected out of the installment sale and reported the maximum selling price for the preferreds in 2008. And if there was any earnouts received in 2009 or 2010, we'd just report the receipts as income.

The commons were reported at a loss with the maximum selling price in 2008.

Questions: When can we take a loss for the earnouts that we did not receive where the earnout period ends at 12/31/09, though the final payment date out of escrow is 1/10/10? Is there any backup for this? I'm having a hard time going through the regs in regards to installment sales.

Though the client elected out of installment sale for the preferreds and there is a loss for the commons, do I still follow IRC 453 and the regs since this sale has contingent (earnout) payments?

Basically, this is a timing issue and I can't find anything on point. I know this is simple but......help!

Thanks,
}}

User talk:Beavos88

Beavos88 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:33:52 GMT

Contingent Sale..Earnout Payments Not to Be Received

Revision as of 02:33, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{UserTalkPageHeader}}		{{UserTalkPageHeader}}
		+
		+	== Contingent Sale..Earnout Payments Not to Be Received ==
		+
		+	Hello,
		+
		+	I am new here. And Happy Thanksgiving.
		+
		+	My client owned some preferred and common stock in a company and it was bought out (merger) by another company in 2008. Based on the merger agreement, They get some money at closing, then, the deal is structured on earnouts on a quarterly basis throughout 2009 (cumulatively). The earnout period ends at 12/31/09. The last payment date of any escrows or earnouts is 1/10/10. The client did receive initial payment at closing in 2008 and the first escrow in the first quarter of 2009. The second quarter earnouts are being disputed and probably will not be paid out. The client has been told by a good source that they have not achieved(and will not achieve) the 3rd and 4th earnouts based on the financials in 2009.
		+
		+	We elected out of the installment sale and reported the maximum selling price for the preferreds in 2008. And if there was any earnouts received in 2009 or 2010, we'd just report the receipts as income.
		+
		+	The commons were reported at a loss with the maximum selling price in 2008.
		+
		+	Questions: When can we take a loss for the earnouts that we did not receive where the earnout period ends at 12/31/09, though the final payment date out of escrow is 1/10/10? Is there any backup for this? I'm having a hard time going through the regs in regards to installment sales.
		+
		+	Though the client elected out of installment sale for the preferreds and there is a loss for the commons, do I still follow IRC 453 and the regs since this sale has contingent (earnout) payments?
		+
		+	Basically, this is a timing issue and I can't find anything on point. I know this is simple but......help!
		+
		+	Thanks,

Discussion:Available Credit Slashed

CrowJD — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:33:00 GMT

Revision as of 02:33, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 52:		Line 52:

	I would like to see the very high paid CEO's of banks that went under and the CEO of AGI be prosecuted for racketeering or maybe it should be embezzlement. They knew what they were doing when they built a house of cards that paid them a fortunate until it collapsed. There were a lot of banks that did not get caught up in the collapsed because their executives were ethical. However, these banks are also having to protect their reserves due to the downward evaluation of all assets. }}		I would like to see the very high paid CEO's of banks that went under and the CEO of AGI be prosecuted for racketeering or maybe it should be embezzlement. They knew what they were doing when they built a house of cards that paid them a fortunate until it collapsed. There were a lot of banks that did not get caught up in the collapsed because their executives were ethical. However, these banks are also having to protect their reserves due to the downward evaluation of all assets. }}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=CrowJD\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I'm not against all banks, I am all for the smaller and mid-sized banks that are still around. Of course, some portion of these will be wiped out this year when the commercial loan meltdown accelerates.
		+
		+	There are some large banks that are doing quite well. Thanks to the taxpayer, they got paid 100 cents on the dollar as AIG counterparties, and they can get money at basically no cost from the Fed. right now. They are speculating with that money, and they are making very nice profits with free money. What a life!
		+
		+	It was also decided to keep certain dead banks alive. These are Zombie banks. Some say that Citi is still a zombie bank, and the only thing that is going to lift their assets is to float them back up with funny money. And, we're well on the way to doing that, but it's like pushing on a string, exactly what happened in Japan.
		+
		+	We need to let some of these zombie banks go ahead and fail, and the sooner, the better. Any depositor in them for more than 250K deserves what they will get at this point. A CEO might actually lose his vacation home: horrors.
		+	}}

User:Beavos88

Beavos88 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:15:22 GMT

New page

[[Image:Nopic.JPG|frame|left|{{PAGENAME}}]] '''Hello, my name is John and I go by the nickname {{PAGENAME}}'''. I must be fairly new here as I haven't yet entered my real information on this page to help others better judge who I am. I'll get to it eventually though, perhaps adding information such as whether I am an EA, etc., where I practice, my areas of expertise, and also perhaps a little about me personally.

If you'd like to leave me a message, just select the discussion tab at the top of this page.

Thank you!

{{PAGENAME}}



{{Template:Note to New Users}}

User talk:Beavos88

Beavos88 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:14:20 GMT

Default new user talk page

New page

Discussion:C-Corp which hasn't filed since 2004

Davidcpa — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:10:18 GMT

I agree with Nat

Revision as of 02:10, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 242:		Line 242:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=(I note that Trillium asked all of the important issues way back in the beginning of this 'quick question and very elementary' topic.)}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=(I note that Trillium asked all of the important issues way back in the beginning of this 'quick question and very elementary' topic.)}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Davidcpa\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=I agree with Natalie...to me this does not pass the sniff test. I do not know many attorneys who are stupid. Arrogant, yes. Stupid, no. I do not buy that he is doing this out of stupidity. Something is up and I would not want to be in the middle of it. Follow your gut from your first posts.
		+
		+	But, Natalie, it was Kevin that suggested going to SOS site. I would bet if he has not filed a tax return in several years, he has not filed the annual report for several years and has been dissolved by the state.
		+
		+	Kevin - thanks for your yellow box work. Some interesting threads.}}

Discussion:Happy Thanksgiving.........

Natalie — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:00:44 GMT

Yes, Happy Thank

Revision as of 02:00, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 25:		Line 25:

	}}		}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Natalie\|Date=November 26, 2009\|Text=Yes, Happy Thanksgiving to all!}}

Discussion:Available Credit Slashed

Snowbird — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:47:52 GMT

Revision as of 01:47, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 48:		Line 48:

	Let all your politicians know what you think about it: loud and clear.}}		Let all your politicians know what you think about it: loud and clear.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Snowbird\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Yep, Blame the banks ... did you actually listen to her report? She said the banks are under capitalized and she would sell bank stocks. You know what happens when a bank is under capitalized? The FDIC closes them and stock holders lose all ... Banks are holding on to capital reserves to stay solvent.
		+
		+	I would like to see the very high paid CEO's of banks that went under and the CEO of AGI be prosecuted for racketeering or maybe it should be embezzlement. They knew what they were doing when they built a house of cards that paid them a fortunate until it collapsed. There were a lot of banks that did not get caught up in the collapsed because their executives were ethical. However, these banks are also having to protect their reserves due to the downward evaluation of all assets. }}

Discussion:Another 280A Vacation Home Audit

DaveFogel — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:30:27 GMT

Wyseson, we don'

Revision as of 01:30, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 51:		Line 51:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Wyseson\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Investment expenses deducted as schedule A Misc Deduction is generally limited to investment income. Since he has no income from the rental, how would he be able to take a misc deduction?}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Wyseson\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Investment expenses deducted as schedule A Misc Deduction is generally limited to investment income. Since he has no income from the rental, how would he be able to take a misc deduction?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=DaveFogel\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Wyseson, we don't know whether there is any investment income on the return, such as interest, dividends, capital gains. This was just an idea to pursue.}}

Discussion:Another 280A Vacation Home Audit

Wyseson — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:40:10 GMT

Investment expen

Revision as of 00:40, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 49:		Line 49:

	Thanks for the thoughts.}}		Thanks for the thoughts.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Wyseson\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Investment expenses deducted as schedule A Misc Deduction is generally limited to investment income. Since he has no income from the rental, how would he be able to take a misc deduction?}}

Discussion:Equitable Relief - Missed Deadline

NYea — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:34:52 GMT

BestGuess If I

Revision as of 00:34, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 45:		Line 45:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=R2\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=The 6330 notice was issued 4/4/07. This would start the clock.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=R2\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=The 6330 notice was issued 4/4/07. This would start the clock.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=NYea\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=BestGuess
		+
		+	If I understand your question correctly, I will disagree with some of my fellow posters.
		+
		+	The Tax Court in Lantz 132 TC No.8 said that the "2 years from first collection activity" does not hold for §6015(f). It is only applicable to relief under §6015(b) or (c).
		+
		+	The holding from the Court:
		+	Held: Sec. 1.6015-5(b)(1), Income Tax Regs., is an invalid interpretation of sec. 6015(f), I.R.C., and
		+	further proceedings are required to determine the validity of P’s claim for relief.
		+
		+	}}

Discussion:Another 280A Vacation Home Audit

Death&Taxes — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:31:55 GMT

Good idea about

Revision as of 00:31, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 43:		Line 43:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=DaveFogel\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=One argument, following the Vandeyacht case, is to say that since the property wasn't rented during the year, nearly all of the expenses (except for the rental agent's fee) represent investment expenses. If the taxes (and interest?) are deductible on Sch. A, and the investment expenses are deductible as Sch. A Misc. deductions (subject to the 2%-of-AGI reduction), what would be the effect on the client's tax liability? Wouldn't it be better to settle for this at the audit level than spend hours in Appeals to achieve a goal that is not likely to be obtained?}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=DaveFogel\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=One argument, following the Vandeyacht case, is to say that since the property wasn't rented during the year, nearly all of the expenses (except for the rental agent's fee) represent investment expenses. If the taxes (and interest?) are deductible on Sch. A, and the investment expenses are deductible as Sch. A Misc. deductions (subject to the 2%-of-AGI reduction), what would be the effect on the client's tax liability? Wouldn't it be better to settle for this at the audit level than spend hours in Appeals to achieve a goal that is not likely to be obtained?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Death&Taxes\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Good idea about audit level, but it will have to be the group manager.
		+
		+	Client is a union electrician with a huge union dues deduction.....AMT limits the investment idea.
		+
		+	Thanks for the thoughts.}}

Discussion:Homebuyer Credit-Taxpayer Name not on closing statement

Quixotic — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:31:03 GMT

If the mother qu

Revision as of 00:31, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 48:		Line 48:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=KathiJud\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=I agree with Dave from the facts presented. The son not being on the closing documents and mortgage will preclude him from claiming the credit. I don't believe the provision of cash toward the down payment changes that. Its unfortunate but a function of the son not being able to be a part of the purchase for whatever reason.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=KathiJud\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=I agree with Dave from the facts presented. The son not being on the closing documents and mortgage will preclude him from claiming the credit. I don't believe the provision of cash toward the down payment changes that. Its unfortunate but a function of the son not being able to be a part of the purchase for whatever reason.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Quixotic\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=If the mother qualifies as a first-time homebuyer and is going to use the house as her principal residence along with your client, allocate the entire credit to her and be done with it! If they all trust each other enough to set up a home purchase in this way, surely they can trust mother to pass along some portion of $8k to her son and or nephew, as deserved.
		+
		+	It is an interesting question, but I'd prefer to ignore the interesting question and go for expedient, if you can. Save the creativity for when you really need it.}}

Discussion:Commodity Wages and Simple Contribution

Agritax — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:27:40 GMT

Did you figure o

Revision as of 00:27, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 9:		Line 9:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=WIBadgerCPA\|Date=20 August 2009\|Text=Any farm tax preparers out there?}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=WIBadgerCPA\|Date=20 August 2009\|Text=Any farm tax preparers out there?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Agritax\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Did you figure out your answer to this question yet? I have a similar case and was curious to see what you found out. }}

Discussion:New Law Home Buyer Credit Q

Quixotic — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:12:21 GMT

Ignore the $6.5k

Revision as of 00:12, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 15:		Line 15:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=That's how I would do it, but not sure how the law reads or if it's been addressed. Assuming the pay the mortgage 50/50....and also assuming the house is worth more than $80,000 (10%)}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=That's how I would do it, but not sure how the law reads or if it's been addressed. Assuming the pay the mortgage 50/50....and also assuming the house is worth more than $80,000 (10%)}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Quixotic\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=Ignore the $6.5k credit, as you don't even need to go there. The boyfriend's prior homeownership doesn't disqualify the girlfriend from being eligible for the $8k credit the way it would if they were married, and according to that notice earlier this year, the credit can be allocated between the owners any way they like, except to disqualified owners. So why not allocate 100% of the $8k to the girlfriend. Unless there's some reason to think she might not share her "windfall" with her co-owner, why not maximize the benefit for the couple as a whole?
		+
		+	Oh, and by the way, the IRS's latest FAQ update addresses the question Tdh555 asked, and confirms the two posts on the 20th.}}

Revision as of 03:07, 26 November 2009		Current revision
Line 34:		Line 34:
	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Harry Boscoe\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=It's been a long time, but as I remember it, Section 351 applies whether or not the "required" statement is filed with the return, and there's no penalty for failure to file the "required" statement.		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Harry Boscoe\|Date=25 November 2009\|Text=It's been a long time, but as I remember it, Section 351 applies whether or not the "required" statement is filed with the return, and there's no penalty for failure to file the "required" statement.
	Am I hallucinating, misremembering, or otherwise showing my age and related memory deficiencies? Is there quite simply no downside to not attaching all this information to the affected return(s)? Has anybody here been challenged on this? }}		Am I hallucinating, misremembering, or otherwise showing my age and related memory deficiencies? Is there quite simply no downside to not attaching all this information to the affected return(s)? Has anybody here been challenged on this? }}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Aguthrie\|Date=26 November 2009\|Text=After the amendment they made to 351 in 08 or so it looks like a pretty simple statement that needs to be added on to the tax returns of the transferor and transferee. One issue is that the S-corporation taking ownership of the LLC isn't really worth anything yet, so I'm not sure how much stock they'll have to issue in exchange for the transfer of ownership and assets. Assets are about 15k in Cash, 35k in Inventory. Any ideas?}}