Discussion:Help with Yellow Box Search Terms

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

Revision as of 11:24, 8 April 2014 by Kevinh5 (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Help with Yellow Box Search Terms


Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Help with Yellow Box Search Terms

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

21 October 2011
FsteinCPA had a great idea: let's give each other help in using the yellow search box in order to find prior discussions on our topic. As JR1 has pointed out, most everything HAS been answered [at least in part] in prior discussions, but finding the appropriate discussion is the hard part.


If you're looking for a particular topic, tell us here, and we'll try to come up with search terms to help you.

Trillium (talk|edits) said:

21 October 2011
Good idea!

And if you're posting at a time when nobody's around to "assist," see if any of the info in the Hints and Tips on How to Search on TaxAlmanac might be helpful. There are also some targeted search suggestions on a few of the discussion topic categories: category list.

Jyoung (talk|edits) said:

21 October 2011
Kevin - thanks for the suggestion. I often search the "box", but come up lacking due to inadequate search terms.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

22 October 2011
The essence of tax research is knowing the correct tax terminology for the issue you have at hand.

I have observed that given the correct tax terminology that some posters could not "get" the correct answer to their question, in my opinion. No comment as to the reasons. (lazy, insufficient tax knowledge, insufficient tax education, don't care, lack of resources, add what you want) Please note that I applied this to only some, actually very few, posters.

In addition, when a research hint is given, sometimes either the poster ignores the suggestion, or another commenter responses with an answer, thereby negating the hint for the poster to do the research using the hint.

A good idea, see how it works.

Thanks....

Pink Pearl (talk|edits) said:

22 October 2011
I usually have problems researching Private Letter Rulings on obscure search words...can we use this channel for help??? I have noticed that some users can find 'em pretty quick...

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

22 October 2011
Sure, this thread will be the 'research help' thread.

Pink Pearl (talk|edits) said:

24 October 2011
ok...I'll give it a shot and see if someone can push me in the right direction of researching any PLR's on the following: Retired National Director of well known MLM company receives a pension based upon the prior 5 years production totals for her unit. Based on Section 1402(k) criteria retiree has in fact terminated her services at age 70 due to mandatory MLM rules, performs no services and is in fact prohibited from performing any services, not sure at this time if a non-compete has been executed but does agree not to participate in the MLM system, the amounts earned in commissions in prior years have all been paid out while retiree was active and the payments will continue for a period of ten years from retirement. The MLM company reports these payments during retirement in box 7 (nonemployee compensation) rather than box 3 (other income). Due to the large amounts that National Directors can make each year the FICA SE amounts are quite significant...I have found issues with insurance agents but...not this area. Any thoughts would be appreciated. MLM head of accounting states that their research shows that the amounts belong in box 7 but each national is free to decide how to handle the FICA SE issues on their own tax returns. Not sure if the MLM company is taking a conservative approach or not and am trying to get additional info on their position on this. Of course the retiree has been self employed with a Sch C during her many years with the MLM.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

25 October 2011
Great idea for a topic! Is there anyway this discussion could be 'pinned' so it remains at the top and easy to find?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

31 October 2011
PP, first, I'd use the term 'SE tax' or 'Self Employment Tax' instead of FICA.

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

31 October 2011
I'm trying to find out how (whether!) to book the "purchase price" of a buyer's share of the reserve fund of a condo. I searched "condominium reserve fund asset income tax basis" in The Yellow Box of Search and found nothing applicable. Can some knight on a galloping steed ride to my rescue?

Pink Pearl (talk|edits) said:

31 October 2011
so sorry Kev...I guess I just never got past the 1960's....old habits die really really hard! sigh

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

1 November 2011
Here is a good discussion about search terms: Discussion: Email Client Returns

SC: did you put that in quotes, or is that only in quotes for us?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

November 1, 2011
And actually, after my last post, I realized that my search term was slightly different from Kevin's. I used email client returns with and without some quotes here and there, changed a couple terms, but still didn't come up with what I knew was there.

Incognito (talk|edits) said:

1 November 2011
Great idea, Kevin. I'm tearing my hair out trying to figure out how to deal with voiding some stale dated checks in my client's QuickBooks. It has me so stressed out that I have eaten a whole box of Girl Scout cookies and I am now thinking that my only solution is to turn to Jim Jones.

Can you help me find a thread that is specific to my particular circumstance before I kill some kittens?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 November 2011
you beat me to the punch, Incognito.

Pink Pearl (talk|edits) said:

1 November 2011
Discussion:Voiding stale dated payroll checks, punch, cookies, Jim Jones, china, coffee, cat food and unclaimed property

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

2 November 2011
Someone, not me, should give us a hint when to enclose our terms in quote marks and when not to enclose. I tried 'condominium reserve fund' in quotes and SC's question came up third of three.

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

2 November 2011
OK, I still do not understand how to search. I was reading Ckenefick's current thread entitled "1 Day". I yellow-box searched the term 1 day (no quotation marks and no capital letter) and then the term 1 Day (no quotation marks but included the capital letter that Ckenefick used in his title. Both searches yielded the same result, namely, that there is no discussion with that title. Then it gave me two discussions to consider, and the second one was the one I wanted. Should I have expected at least the second search to have produced the one i was looking for?

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

2 November 2011
Just tried the search with quotation marks, i.e., "1 Day". Same result.

Sid50 (talk|edits) said:

2 November 2011
I just searched 1 Day, and it came up. Log in and go to your preferences, and then go to Search. Do you have Discussions checked for your search preferences?

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

2 November 2011
Yes, Discussion is one of the boxes checked. No big deal. I will wallow through until I get it.

Trillium (talk|edits) said:

2 November 2011
There are some semantic weaknesses on the search results page. While it's usually the upside-down order of the results that bugs people the most, the wording on that page is misleading in many places. That top line you see sometimes (depending on your user-set search preferences) says "No article titles include your search terms." It's excluding discussion titles when making that determination, which on a site like TA is ridiculous. The next line says "There is no page titled ""1 Day""." Which is technically true, because that discussion is titled "Discussion:1 Day" (the wiki seems to think that the difference is significant!). The key thing to check is "Page Title Matches" - those are usually search gold, if your search terms are specific enough. And then go to the "Article Content Matches" (and here for some reason it's content of both articles and discussions) and scan the results from the bottom, up.

Your capitalization of any search terms won't make a difference, but including them in quotes will. One- or two-character terms will be ignored completely unless they're part of a quoted phrase.

One thing that I think isn't yet in the Hints and Tips on How to Search on TaxAlmanac is that your number of "Page Title Matches" may increase if you bump your number of views up to 500 (or anything more than what you started with). That's apparently because if the page title match is match #51, and you have 50 views selected, it won't include it with the other "Page Title Matches" even if there are only one or two in that list. Again, quite strange.

As to D&T's request, there are few times I don't use quotes around words I expect to see together. I might not use quotes around "beneficial ownership" since it's often written as "beneficial and equitable ownership" and that latter phrase would be excluded from the results if I had the former search phrase in quotes.

Incognito (talk|edits) said:

27 December 2011
Can somebody please help me find discussions that talked about how long you have to wait to reverse a change in an accounting method? I have a client that went from cash to accrual a few years ago, but now wants to go back to cash.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

27 December 2011
use the search terms

3115 accounting method


or


3115 change


(neither in quotes)

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 December 2011
Numbers is the only way to do it.

I suggest the members here review the West Key(TM) system to see how the pros do it. What is the West Key Number System(TM): Voila: http://lawschool.westlaw.com/knumbers/default.asp?mainpage=16&subpage=4

On the other hand, I must warn everyone that people prefer "live action"; the back and forth, the debate, the foolishness, and the often tried but rarely successful "trying to slip one past the crowd". (Slipping one past the crowd means that they think if they can pull one over on the experts here they can pull one over on "The Goverment".)

Another thing you could do is institute a fee. Every time you post a question you have to pay $1.00. Every time you answer a question you get a credit of .50. One word answers don't count (even though the crowd could vote to give you at least a dime credit if it was witty).

Your credit will only offset any question fees you have accrued. In other words they are nonrefundable! Don't expect the old ball and chain to get any of your credit money when you die.

Wrong and irrelevant answers still deserve a credit (that way I could still post answers and get a credit). On the other hand, if someone is right all the the time they could be subject to a FINE to be determined by the supervisors because no one likes a "know it all" or a smart alleck.

By charging people a nominal fee to post a question it will encourage use of the dreaded and poorly indexed (some might even say wretched) "Yellow Box".

My 2 cents. (Since I came up with the idea, I feel I am entitled to give myself two cents toward any future credits I may have).

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

28 December 2011
OK, the other day I was looking for this thread (however, I forgot the search terms I needed help with and couldn't remember the name of this thread).

Could we 'pin' this thread on top? Pretty please...............

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

28 December 2011
Cathy, I'm going to link it in the 'how to search' thread that is already sticky near the top of the list.

Discussion:How to Search


The problem with adding more discussions to the 'sticky' list is that they take up very valuable real estate space, leaving less room for other discussions.


But by linking it in the 'how to search', you'll always have access to it.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

28 December 2011
Thanks, Kevin, you're a doll (don't tell anybody I said that)!

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

29 December 2011
Discussion:Subcontractor expenses on corporate return Discussion moved to this link because it got off of the topic of yellow box search terms.

Dhtax (talk|edits) said:

30 January 2012
I just got flamed by someone who assumed I didn't try the search box first. Well, maybe I'm just a dork, but I tried a bunch of variations that didn't come up with what I wanted, so I posted a new question. My suggestion is that when this happens, instead of flaming the poster, assume some degree of intelligence and just point to a link or suggest search terms. That way we learn from each other.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

30 January 2012
I tried Custodial Parent and found Discussion: Non-custodial parent files first, claiming child and also tried William Ward, which is a seminal case where remedy was found thru state courts.

Bracket Creep (talk|edits) said:

30 January 2012
Maybe also the poster could let everyone know what search terms they used, unsuccessfully. Then a suggestion might follow to use a better search phrase or terms.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

30 January 2012
He wants to find a way to cut thru red tape, and get the client her money tomorrow. She seemed to forget that if you snooze, you lose.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 30, 2012
Type in Kevin and you'll get answers, I'm pretty sure. That's how he has it set.

RBruce (talk|edits) said:

30 January 2012
How did I get here?

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

30 January 2012
This thread is an awesome idea, who thought if it?

RBruce (talk|edits) said:

30 January 2012
Even when we're *successful* with our Yellow Box search, how can we be sure that what we find isn't obsolete, or "old law"?

MilTaxEA (talk|edits) said:

30 January 2012
I always wonder the same thing when I see a cite to a Rev Rul, Rev Proc, or case law from the 80s or 90s.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

31 January 2012
When someone asks a question, how can he be sure that the person answering knows the current law?

HowardS (talk|edits) said:

31 January 2012
Kevinh5, how did get a 31 January 2012 timestamp when it is 9:19pm jan 30 on the east coast? Are you in a boat in the middle of the Atlantic?

Trillium (talk|edits) said:

31 January 2012
Howard, for your question, I'd recommend this search: Search "time zone" GMT.

MilTaxEA (talk|edits) said:

31 January 2012
Kevin, most of the time I use the cites provide here to help focus my research. Those typically help me formulate better keywords for my research into the authoritative sources.

Zokan (talk|edits) said:

1 February 2012
Any links to threads on sales pitches?

Thanks 8D

Trillium (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2012
I'm tempted to offer this, but I have a feeling you may be asking about marketing your practice? In that case, there's an entire forum for that: Business Growth Community. Maybe browse page 1 of the index, open up a few discussions that seem promising, and get better search terms from there...

Zokan (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2012
I more had in mind. Potential customer calls.....How much do you charge? and where to go from there. Business growth community is awesome, I just don't recall anything on dealing with phone calls. I have one more week to focus on football before I switch to baseball 8D

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2012
Zokan, use the search term

script

to find people's discussions of telephone sales scripts

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2012
another potential search term

"how much do you charge"

should bring up some interesting discussions on the topic

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2012
http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22how+much+do+you+charge%22+script

Here's what comes up when you use both search terms.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

17 February 2012
What would be the best terms to use to check on:

Taxpayer moved from one state to another, took huge loss ($55,000) on sale of home. Employer included in the reimbursement for moving expenses $25,000 to help with this loss. This amount is included in box 1 of W2.

I'd like to see if this amount could be treated as part of the selling price of the home.

Thanks

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

17 February 2012
It can't, but there have been discussions on

moving expense reimburse

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

18 February 2012
I found this under Moving Expense Reimbursement......it is not on topic but gives an idea of the play between employer and employee. Your client is receiving a reimbursement for the loss minus the tax paid, or if in a 30% bracket, 70% of the 25K. Sounds like a good deal.

Discussion: Recruiting and relocation expense for S corp

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

18 February 2012
Thanks Kevin and D&T.

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

18 February 2012
Discussion:Home Sale Exclusion with Employer Compensation

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

19 February 2012
Leonard, how did I miss that? Thanks. When I do my daily reading of TA, I must have gone right passed it (of course I didn't know at the time that I would be needing that info).

DesertRat (talk|edits) said:

24 February 2012
I get a tremendous benefit from searching for discussions here but guess I'm having a mental block on how to find anything on this one:Father and son(and spouses) purchased duplex in 2009 for cash, each putting up half. They each put up half of costs to renovate, then rented out both sides. Parents are in 80s, have little income besides SS and didn't need the loss generated by the rental so showed nothing on tax returns. Son showed one half of income, one half of expenses, and used one half of basis for depreciation. In 2011, property is sold and each receive 1099S for one half of sale. Parents thought son had been claiming everything on rental activity, son thought parents were claiming their half. I'm only doing the return for the parents and assume that I need to show the sale, adjusting basis for one half of allowable depreciation. I wanted to read some discussion of this type situation and see if there was any justification for treating the parents half as investment even though the property had been a rental or if I needed to amended the past returns for the parents showing half the rents and expenses. They had 0 taxable income both years and this sale is going to be a small loss with or without the depreciation adjustment, and they'll have 0 taxable income either way. I've searched for rental+silent partner and half rental + half investment and a few others. Nothing seems to be quite what I'm needing. Any help with search terms would be greatly appreciated.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

24 February 2012
Well, you might start with this search term:

Circular 230 knowledge of error or omission

DesertRat (talk|edits) said:

24 February 2012
Well, that sort of jumps past what I was looking for but I guess your answer means that I should quit looking for something that doesn't exist and advise them that they should amend. thank you.

COGS (talk|edits) said:

24 February 2012
I find that using Google works better than the yellow box. I put in "taxalmanac" the the key words and it generally gets me pretty good results.

Taxaway (talk|edits) said:

25 February 2012
Along the same lines as COGS suggest, I use Google in searching irs.gov, quicker to get to the correct version/year of whatever pub/form/info I may want.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

26 February 2012
This question has now been moved to its own discussion: Discussion:New C-Corp - Valuation of Property.

ok - a single shareholder C-Corp was holding rental property. The only asset Corp owned. Prior to that C-Corp closing, it transferred/sold/gifted for $1 the rental house that was owned to a new C-Corp owned by 17 individuals.

Looking to research at what value the property transferred in would be. NBV, FMV, or another amount. Obviously, common sense doesn't enter into the picture.

Haven't done any research, but will be reading, actually, having staff read and document and summarize, but I suck at search terms, so I wanted to start here first.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

26 February 2012
(In my opinion) This is a dissolution of a corp, Fred, at FMV. Which means possible gain at C Corp level, but no loss recognizable because of the related party rules. Hopefully they have an appraisal.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

26 February 2012
Another possibility is a corp reorginization. Check into that.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

26 February 2012
Thanks Kevin, I'll do a search and then post questions as not to busy this thread up.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

26 February 2012
after re-reading the documents, original owner of C-Corp transfer is not an owner/shareholder of the new corporation.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

26 February 2012
Then it sounds like a taxable dissolution.

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

27 February 2012
Fsteincpa, pretty sure it is as Kevinh5 says a taxable dissolution, with the results he describes about5 posts ago. But what else? Unless the property is worth exactly $1, and what are the odds of that, there is more to this transaction. Are the 17 owners of the second (new) corp. related to the sole owner of the seller/transferor? Your post says gift/transfer/sale are all possible, but at what price? And is there debt on the property? There must be more to this story, yes?

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

27 February 2012
Podolin, I agree, I will actually be creating a new post as I don't wish to clutter this one up. I was going to post last night but was informed by my faux wife that I was not to stay in the office any longer. I was politely requested/informed that I should leave immediately.

See Discussion:New C-Corp - Valuation of Property for more on Fred's question....

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

15 February 2013
I think now is a good time to bump up this thread in case anyone needs help with search terms.

Firebird83 (talk|edits) said:

6 June 2013
I have a client who is an S Corp owner of a business that is no longer operating (corporation owes on a bank loan which the client personally guaranteed). He would like to dissolve the corporation and assume the debt. My question is how to enter his interest payments on the loan to deduct as business interest (after the year of dissolution). I wouldn't think it belongs on Schedule E anymore, and I don't see a place on Schedule A either. I tried searching prior discussions but must not have put in the correct search terms, I'm sure it's been discussed before.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

6 June 2013
It has been discussed before, not just from a partnership point of view, but also, as your case is, as an S corp. I'm sure that Riley(or Riley2) answered it in 2007 or maybe 2008. Let me think about the proper search terms.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

6 June 2013
In the meantime, the answer is YES, Sch E.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

6 June 2013
perhaps

Expenses of closed business

Firebird83 (talk|edits) said:

6 June 2013
Thanks x 3 - was a little too specific in my wording on the search, your suggestion makes much more sense-

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

6 June 2013
Try this: Discussion:S corp. shareholder loan funded with home eqity debt

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

6 June 2013
And see Solomon's answer here: Discussion:Unreimbursed Partner Expenses for a Closed Partnership

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

6 June 2013
Instead, it is a special application of the interest tracing rules under 163-8T.

This is what Riley2 said and I completely agree. The tracing line hasn't been broken.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

16 January 2014
Could someone suggest the best search terms for the following scenario:

Uncle passes away. Will states fixed amount to six grandnieces and grandnephews. Remaining estate goes to one niece. Niece was given verbal instructions to give Aunt a small amount and then split the remainder with two other nieces and a nephew (I know, very stupid, but the family was lucky they got Uncle to make a will because there are many nieces and nephews).

Uncle left small taxable IRA. Couple of small life insurance policies (one was taxable). A large annuity purchased with after tax dollars.

Questions:

Can all accounts be transferred to Uncle's new FEIN and then distributed to the heirs or does everything have to be paid to the one niece.

Thanks

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

16 January 2014
CathysTaxes, the term you are searching for is "Qualified disclaimer"

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

16 January 2014
Thanks so much Kevin!

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

16 January 2014
Got what I needed, thanks again.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

7 April 2014
Hey Search Gurus!

What terms should I use to find the section that states a landlord cannot deduct his own labor for rental improvements?

Thanks!

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

7 April 2014
Sec 1012.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

7 April 2014
Thanks Chris!

Aatop (talk|edits) said:

7 April 2014
Would love some assistance searching for help with the following:

Partnership held a piece of real estate for investment. Purchased at height of market so when it finally sold, it sold at a loss. The loss was to the extent that a loan had to be taken out to make up the difference between the available sales proceeds and the existing mortgage. I'm looking for how to treat the interest expense on the new loan on Form 1065.

TIA!

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

8 April 2014
Well, maybe think about what this really amounts to: A new debt, unsecured by the property, being used to pay down an existing debt, that is secured by the property.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

8 April 2014
Interest tracing, aatop.
Personal tools