Discussion:Late to the party for medicare on line 29

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

Discussion Forum Index --> Consumer Questions --> Late to the party for medicare on line 29


  • Transferring a question that was posted in Harry's discussion about a completely different question, earlier today, and all related posts:

MrBealy (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
Are Medicare premiums deuctible on line 29 as self employed health insurance? There seems to be differences of opinions and nothing in black andf whiter; Code,regs, etc!

MrBealy (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
Are Medicare premiums deuctible on line 29 as self employed health insurance? There seems to be differences of opinions and nothing in black andf whiter; Code,regs, etc!

KeithR (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
See Discussion:SE_Health_Insurance_-_Part_B_-_Letter_to_Congress#UPDATE_2011, in particular Dave Fogel's analysis.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
That is why we have a search vehicle in the little box to your left.

Sorry gang, but for this one only a search like hereDiscussion: SE Health Insurance - Part B - Letter to Congress

KatieJ (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
You could also read the form instructions (what a concept!). See the 1040 instructions, page 29.

Illini (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
I just don't get it -- how come we are so unwilling to help anyone? The answer to EVERY question on this forum could be "check the yellow box" and "read the code", "read the instructions". I read this stuff to inform myself, not to read insults to the OPs. so you don't waste any time - it's actually page 28 of 1040 instructions "If you were self-employed and owe self-employment tax, fill in Schedule SE to figure the amount of your deduction." Now you have more time to refresh yourself at the PBRigerator. Have one for me please.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
Because I thought at some point this asset might resemble

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die

not a Psychic Friends Help Line. It's not like Jake's letter was buried deep in the archives.

Illini (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
Yes, but a post with a non-answer clogs the yellow box up with non-productive answers and non-productive research attempts. I wonder what % of the posts actually have helpful information? At the least, we should weed out the non-productive posts to speed up research.

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
MrBealy: Fill in your profile so's we can try to figure out how come you can say something so obtuse as "there's nothing in black and white." And say it twice, too!

The Rest: I thought this was *my thread*... [Whine. Where's my pacifier? I musta left it in the fridge...]

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
The developments have been covered in Kiplinger, Spidell, weekly NATP bulletins, NAEA bulletins, and others. I can only assume the poster dozed off last November and now is waking up. I hope it is that, and that he does not have a lot of 1040Xs to do.

Trillium (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
A link (or two) directly to one of the many discussions that directly address Mr. Bealy's question, particularly when the link goes directly to the post with that not only answers the question but provides cites and analysis, as Keith's link did, is as far from a "non-answer" as you can get. I don't see how Keith or D&T could possibly be seen as having been unhelpful in their responses; the only way to have been more on-point to someone like the person who woke up from a multi-month nap and hijacked Harry's discussion would be to copy and paste the same responses from the prior discussion over and over again for those who skip the 4 steps to asking a new tax question. Wouldn't you get tired of that, too?

[Oh - on re-reading I wonder if Illini thought Harry was being sent to the yellow box. It was only when I realized that the cite Illini provided was not going to be applicable for poor Mr. Bealy at all that I started to think perhaps the pub reference was meant to address Harry's complex hypothetical post-final exam question for the post-tax-deadline doldrums week. Ah, well, it's already been moved over here with the rest, so Harry can delve deeper into tax oddities uninterrupted....]

Trillium (talk|edits) said:

20 April 2011
Oh, yes, and good news for those who believe some of the older and/or less helpful discussions shouldn't be displayed in the search results - that upgrade is already in process. Tim has set up a new section of the site, called "Discussion Archives," and discussions are slowly being moved there. That section will be excluded from the default searches, but still searchable if you come up empty in the non-archived discussions. Now all we need are some people to volunteer to help improve the site by marking discussions to be archived. For more info on the discussion archives, please see FAQ #22. And thanks in advance to any volunteers (contact Tim, Kevin, me).

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools