User talk:Smokeytax

From TaxAlmanac

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to TaxAlmanac! My name is Tim Doyle and I serve here in the role of TaxAlmanac Moderator. If you haven't done so already, you might want to review our Quick Start Guide to help you get oriented.

As you begin to interact on TaxAlmanac, your changes will be linked to this page, your personal user page. We encourage you to edit this page and add a short description about yourself. This will allow others to better understand your background and qualifications as they review any replies or information that you submit. I see that you've already added information to your user page - thank you!

If you have tax-related questions, we encourage you to add them in our Tax Questions Discussion Forum. We also suggest that you introduce yourself to the other members of the TaxAlmanac community on the User Introduction Discussion Forum.

If you can think of anything we can do to make TaxAlmanac a more useful resource to you, please feel free to give us your feedback on the TaxAlmanac Feedback Discussion Forum.

I hope you enjoy being a member of the TaxAlmanac community! If you have any questions, see the help pages or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 08:49, 29 December 2006 (CST)

Corporation owns auto and employee has mixed use

I agree with smokeytax. How does the corporation deduct the auto expense when let's say 40% is used by the employee for personal use? When the Value is added to the ee W-2, Does the employer deduct 60% of auto expense as auto expense and the 40% added to W-2 as wages and then has to pay the FICA also? Nei

Thank you for your offer for help!

I did get one response from an individual here but thank you very much!!

I have had an issue with a potential client that got my contact info from TA and I did not know how to proceed with a very unorthodox request they had of me...to prepare a sample tax return with numbers they said they were just "pulling out of a hat so to speak" so they could see how if they proceed with their plans to organize an International corporation it would look on a 1065.

I have already given them over 20 hours of research on their issues which I don't mind since it was general information, but when someone wants me to plug #'s into software to prepare a return and send it to them, they could be using this for an actual return and/or use adobe to change numbers or create a tax return from numbers they see on my work...

Anyways, thanks and if you have any input, please let me know. I have yet to respond to their request...wanted to bow out of this gracefully if I could :)

Sandysea

Invoicing a client

My name is Tracy and I as part of my business; I invoice clients. I also have clients that I have taught how to use the invoicing feature on several levels of QuickBooks. I have this client that invoices as per our advice and she is being told by a woman that is way past due that the way she invoices is illegal simply because her invoice does not have the 1-30, 30-60, 60-90 and over 90 days past due boxes on it and that is why she is not paying. I have never heard of a law that requires this information especially since these invoices are due upon receipt. I understand that certain information is required by law to be placed on an invoice, such as, the company's name, address, phone number and that are the only laws I am aware of. Plus, you put what you are billing for and how much and when it is due. Am I correct in advising my client that this client of hers that is saying that she (the non-paying client) is incorrect in saying that the invoice must also, by law, show how behind she is? --TLCTaxGirlAZ 21:42, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Tlcqbadvisor@msn.com

Could you send me the below information... I seem to be having a hard time finding it... or just the link... Thanks..

Check out TC Memo 1998-408, which has a good discussion of true leases vs. "capital" or "conditional" leases

Could you send me the info or a link to it... Thanks

e-mail: desertsatellite@hotmail.com

Check out TC Memo 1998-408, which has a good discussion of true leases vs. "capital" or "conditional" leases

I noticed that you determined cosmetic surgery after weight loss (removal of excess skin) was considered an allowable medical deduction for Sch A.

I have a client under audit for this deduction. I am beginning my response and would like to know what tax provision that you are have referenced.

If you have a moment, I would love your assistance.

Thank you, delanecpa in Oklahoma

Recent post (flippers & printing money)

You recently posted to the "where are the flippers" discussion, so I'm letting you know that the discussion has been moved over to the Chat forum since it (a) is not really about tax questions and (b) has some political or semi-political posts, which the community has, in the past, wanted to be able to avoid in the tax forum.

You could also still get to that discussion by going to "my contributions" at the top of your screen, and looking at your recent contributions. Click on the flippers discussion title and you'll jump to it from there.

Trillium 11:08, 14 February 2009 (CST)

PS - with regard to your question on printing money - here's a nice NYT article that gives an overview of both what it means (literally and figuratively) and what the implications of it are: Printing Money – and Its Price (12-29-08). ...Trillium

Moved "Crazy Calls" to Chat

Smokeytax – I’ve moved your Crazy calls discussion from the tax forum to the Chat forum because (a) it’s rolled off of the first page of the tax forum without getting all that much attention yet and (b) it seems like it’d be a good chat topic. Hope that’s okay; if you'd rather just have it fade away on the tax forum, let me know and I'll move it back.

Trillium 00:29, 12 March 2009 (CDT)

Are you willing to discuss some issues with me via email or let me call you and talk over the phone? I'm a CPA working full-time and trying to start my business from home and I would love to be able to talk to someone that has been able to do it.

Thanks. copelandh@sbcglobal.net

Noir

Smokey, I've been watching some of the old detective and gangster movies from the 1930's and '40s today, so it's got me in the mood to say "rough underbelly of the city." Forgive me, but I couldn't help it.CrowJD 18:02, 15 June 2009 (CDT)

Added a link to the WSJ article on Garnett case

Hi, Smokeytax - your Garnett discussion has recently been bumped again, which reminded me that I wanted to add a link to the wsj.com website for that article. Turns out that this is an ungated article (didn't need to sign in to see it), so I've added the link to the article to your post, replacing the text of the article that was there. It's my understanding that copying small parts of articles published elsewhere is allowed under standard copyright rules, but that copying entire articles may not be, so I figured it was probably safer to just have the llnk.

PS, thanks for starting this discussion, and for posting the article - that's turned out to be a very interesting back and forth there!

Trillium 11:37, 22 July 2009 (CDT)

Smokeytax:

I have read the information on the Thompson case.

It is favorable to the taxpayer. In summary, a person who "materially participates" in an LLC will not have their losses limited solely because their libility is "limited'.......

it appears to me that the material participation rules should be evaluated (as we have since the beginning of the 86 codes...)

The LLC is a complicated entity in that every tax line item has to be "evaluated" and in many cases is the outcome (is this aggressive or not?) "unknown"......

Is it aggressive to deduct losses on an LLC's member's 1040 when she clearly materially participates????? The cases help reslove this.

My goodness, the Passive Loss rules are just now being tested..... The issues are just now being resolved......

The ambiquity of the LLC either makes the entity a "great" entity for great tax planning or a great entity for a big fat tax tax burden....... The old, you tell me and we will both know analysis seems to fit......

Additional food for thought as disclosed by Aaron P. Nocjar of Steptoe & Johnson LLP

"If Congress were to act in response to these developments, it seems that a reasonable response would be to simply remove 469(h)(2)", Mocjar added. "however, if Treasury [the IRS] acts withhout any furhter direction from Congresss, we might see something analogous to the proposed regulations that define 'limited partner' for purposes of the exception for a limited partner's distributive share of partnership income from the self-employment tax under section 1402(a)(13)"

Again - the ambigouity of this entity......

Question: Has the issue Mocjar raises ever been resolved???????

Sincerely,

Joe Tax.....