User talk:Lhhesscpa

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 Lhhesscpa

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

Leave a message for Lhhesscpa by clicking here




I blanked out your phone number and email address that you added to this page. It is common for automated "robots" used by spammers to view any and all webpages they can find to add phone numbers and email addresses to their collection for spamming purposes. I'd hate for you to start getting spam due to your posts on TaxAlmanac.

Yvette left you a message here, but to reply to her, you'd need to go to her talk page. Only then will she be notified that you have responded.

Also, a better way to begin private communication is to go to her page and select "E-mail this user". That's the safest way to send someone your phone number or email address without announcing it to the world. In order for this to work, the other person must have added their email address to their preferences. If they haven't, they can go to your user page and send you a message in the same way. If you need any help with this, just let me know.

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 09:42, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Private Chats

No, the wiki model is for everything to be open for anyone to read, so anything private should be taken offline.

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 14:06, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Larry appreciate

I appreciate the wise counsel you have already given on many issues here. Please let me know what you think of my post on "Biggest Issue" (it's regarding AMT), and the fact that it really cannot be repealed now. I think it's extremely unfortunate that accounting has gotten pushed aside by tax, and as we both know, the smaller practitioner now is doing 70% tax. By the same token, clients desparately need the counsel of an accountant to understand the ungodly speculation that's going on in our economy now in real estate (or speculation in any area)... and just exactly what compound interest really means to the wallet (on the payor, not receiving side)! We have a very, very strange thing going on now. All clients under 36 can use a tax program as well as we can, so we have to offer them value added. How can you offer them value added under a flat tax? But, lets say they could repeal the AMT, will younger accountants wake up to the fact that they must offer more than plugging numbers into programs in the day of very sophisticated clients? Thanks for your very good posts.--CrowJD 19:03, 22 December 2006 (CST)

Thank you


Thanks for your comments with respect to my "snafus." I think they have all been on-point. Not necessarily fun to hear, but on-point and accurate, and hey, the topic *is* the IRS.

Your comments have been the best I could ask for just short of walking into your office (which would be a long walk, because I'm in Georgia!)

Very much appreciated.

Lostbyirs 16:47, 29 December 2006 (CST)

New Mexico Links


Thank you for adding the New Mexico Links!

I see you've become a frequent visitor here on TaxAlmanac. How are you liking it? Any feedback on how I can make it better?


- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 13:46, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Finding Code and Reg sections


I agree - this could be made easier. Do you know that you can type "Sec. 123" into the search box to go right to a code section? "Reg. 1.123-1" works the same way for regs. If this isn't the functionality you were looking for, let me know. If it is, perhaps I better make that more widely known.


Note that when I say to type in "Sec. 123" you would do that without the quotes.

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 14:57, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Adding a category

It's ok if the category doesn't exist - the link will just be red. You can then click on that and type something in and save it. We recommend a 1 or 2 sentence summary of what the category covers, but you can do anything. I sometimes put " " which is an HTML code meaning "non-breakable space". I have to do that because if you try to just type a regular space, the editor removes it, sees that you haven't made any changes, and won't save. It's too smart (supposedly).

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 20:27, 15 January 2007 (CST)

RE: Rule of Thumb for Land Value


I read your comment and you don't seem to be pleased at what I said. You do have a lot more experience in Accounting and Tax than I do - so I respect your comments and value them. However, as I stated, back in the mid 80's I did work as a bookkeeper of a local owned CPA firm. This is where I first heard the expression " Rule of Thumb " for land valuation. I thought it was the norm. So when my client was recently audited and the Revenue Agent was discussing the value of the Land - I thought everyone had heard of this Rule of Thumb.

I don't know what I am going to tell my client now. I just explained the Rule of Thumb to her and now she wants me to try to get back the deduction for the disallowed depreciation. Oh boy...Although, i could simply make a case in my appeal to the IRS that the former CPA did not have any actual appraisals on the land. And the Taxpayer did not know anything about this either.

Thanks for your comments!


LPKCPA 18:42, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Larry: Thank you for your advice. I probably do need to find a more experienced Tax Attorney, CPA, or EA that can "mentor" me. Being inexperienced in the fine art of "IRS AUDITS", is a bit intimidating when working with a seasoned Revenue Agent and could result in less than perfect results for my clients. This is something that I definitely want to avoid.

Thank goodness that I do have good E & O Insurance - although I don't want to have to use it!

Another lesson I learned from my first tax audit - GET A RETAINER from the client UP FRONT! I guess the TP figures that if the CPA cannot get the tax bill reduced - that they did not earn their fee? I will require payment up front in the future. I don't like doing work for free. Cannot make a living this way...........

Thanks again.

LPKCPA 10:43, 4 February 2007 (CST)

Restitution Payments


Thanks for your response. I guess it is just a little bit confusing because the income that was illegally obtained was claimed as income (tax returns amended to include income), therefore, tax is being paid on that money. It would seem that since the money is being repaid from the illegal activity that the taxpayer should be able to claim those payments. I guess that is just the IRS for you. Thanks again.



Thanks for categorizing the Lacerte discussions. That has been usefull reading for me.

William Price, EA | Portland, OR - Talk to me

Lacerte View


One of the things that we built in the discussion forums was flexibility. Now that people, including yourself, are categorizing discussions, we have the ability to create unique views into that data. Take a look at Discussion Forum - Lacerte. This page shows all discussions which have been categorized in the category of Lacerte, sorted by most recently edited. I thought you might find this helpful.

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 20:20, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Lacerte Forum


You can't yet - I've just created this as a test - to see if it was useful. Because of this, I haven't linked it in to the main structure yet. You can add a link to it from your user page if you want though. Because this is the first of what could end up being many such views, I need to think through a few issues before a solidify it by linking it in permanently. Keep in mind that this is a view of topics which are actually in other forums, such as Tax Questions and User Introductions. I need to think through how to make this work without confusing people.

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 21:10, 18 February 2007 (CST)

User Page vs. Talk Page

Hi Larry:

You actually added it to your User page not your User talk page (abbreviated to "talk" page). Your user page is the one with your picture on it - notice the title startes with "User:". This page is your User talk page. But yes, that's what I meant - you did exactly the right thing. Hope you had a good weekend and aren't working too hard!

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 23:13, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Been There

Believe me, I have been there! In the "old days" of Lacerte, before we had automated and streamlined some of our processes and a lot more was done manually, I worked some pretty long hours. I remember one week of 97 hours, times when I had been at the office for 2.5 days without sleep, and finally falling asleep on my office floor using the back of my down-turned chair as a pillow because I was too sleepy to drive home. Hang in there!

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 08:22, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Hi Larry, from Santa Fe.

I didn't think we had anyone on this forum from NM....

Where did you come from, originally?

I edited this page only to remove my e-mail address---------

Mike Gray, EA

age calculation

Larry, this is the one of a lot of little things that makes me feel very very young. Just divide my age. When I do that my grown up boys LOL, and invite me for diner.

Hi Larry, from Santa Fe.

Hello again...

Thanks again for your help.

I feel I might need to buy a franchise or something, this tax season is a bust.

How's your's going?


followup to my question

Thank you. I thought that the retention period was three years, I just needed to make sure.

Thank you

Thank you for helping me with my questionGlendaandtaxes 23:28, 17 March 2007 (CST)glendaandtaxes



Do you know the copyright status for the spring chickens picture you added to the site?


- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 13:56, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Gross Receipts Tax


I have a client in Los Angeles that has an office in Santa Fe and provides services to New Mexico clients. The business started in 2006 and really got rolling in 2007. It is a consulting business. I understand a little about the gross receipts tax, but have not been able to find an easy place on the internet where we can register and pay back taxes for 2007 and possibly 2006, or is it an annual payment after the year is ended?

If you are interested in preparing the forms I might refer them to you for this particular purpose. I also might have to begin allocating the LLC income to New Mexico in 2007.


Andy Levinson

Tax implications of forming an LLC as S-corp for rental property


My name is Mike Daley and I am from Albuquerque as well. I was just wondering if I could get your contact information and maybe meet with you some time about tax implications with forming an LLC or LLC taxed as S-Corp for strictly rental property? I had previously talked to my tax accountant, but his explination was so unclear that I am not sure if he knew what he was talking about.


Mike Daley

Hi Larry,

I have a NM question. I am reading myself around in circles. The client moved to Colorado from NM on Sept 25.

I cannot get Lacerte to allocate only the 75% of his pension income to NM. It keeps coming out on PIT-B line #3 as the full amount received. At the input screen 13.1 I am allocating the amounts 25% to CO, 75% to NM. I can see that CO is being generated correctly.

After reading the instructions for PIT-1 & PIT-B, my question is "because the client lived in NM more than 185 days, they have to report ALL their income as if it was from NM?' It says it right on the form itself but that means my client has to pay NM tax on the CO amount as well?

I'm sure I just answered my own question but wanted to be 100% for the client. Thank you so much. Barb

Did my question come up?

I'm not sure I'm doing this right...

Barbcolorado1 20:39, 20 March 2008 (CDT) Barb

Simple question? Part Year Resident NM Form PIT-B

Opps. I did it wrong and it was attached to the last question. Here goes--

Hi Larry,

I have a NM question. I am reading myself around in circles. The client moved to Colorado from NM on Sept 25.

I cannot get Lacerte to allocate only the 75% of his pension income to NM. It keeps coming out on PIT-B line #3 as the full amount received. At the input screen 13.1 I am allocating the amounts 25% to CO, 75% to NM. I can see that CO is being generated correctly.

After reading the instructions for PIT-1 & PIT-B, my question is "because the client lived in NM more than 185 days, they have to report ALL their income as if it was from NM?' It says it right on the form itself but that means my client has to pay NM tax on the CO amount as well?

I'm sure I just answered my own question but wanted to be 100% for the client. Thank you so much. Barbcolorado1 20:41, 20 March 2008 (CDT)Barb

Hey it worked! Thank you

I was just trying to figure out how it get back to your chat spot when the message popped up! Thank you so much. I always try to research the question completely before I ask then second guess myself to death if the answer isn't the one I want. Thanks also for this tip- "If you e-file, mail the CO return attached to NM form PIT-8453." No guarentee that Lacerte or I would have caught that. Go home! It must be 8 in NM too...

Lacerte discussions

I just saw your favorite place on TA. I never saw that before, and it's not listed under "discussion forums" on the bottom left. How did you get that?

As far as the file goes, if I don't save it, it causes problems sometimes.Natalie 14:06, 17 June 2008 (CDT)Natalie

Consumer forum

It was decided to leave the consumer forum 'unadvertised' and available only by jumping through hoops (posting through the link on the Tax Question or Accounting Question pages) so that we didn't encourage more consumer questions. TA is really for Tax Professionals, so if it was advertised / easy for DIYers to post here, all sorts of links to "Free Tax Advice" would be on the internet by tax season.

Then it was decided to alert new users that they should be a Tax Pro before registering, to try to discourage people a little more. The window is still open for DIYers who already have profiles, however, and so the link from the Tax or the Accounting forum is the only way for them to ask a question.

If you click on that link, you will be taken to the separate forum for Consumer 'Chats'. I hope this helps answer why there is no direct forum link on the left or in the forum categories. Kevinh5


Thank you for the feedback Larry!

The mouse-over balloons are a feature of the wiki software overall, and not anything specific that we've added to the discussion forum index. The only column on those pages which are in any way set by me/us is the Last Post Date column, which is set to 15% of the total width of the grid. Other than that, each browser is responsible for determining how wide to make each of the columns, based upon the actual data in the table, which of course changes after each new question is asked. We need to be aware that people have different monitor sizes, so we can't be too specific on how it should appear, or someone with a larger monitor would see unused space, or someone with a smaller monitor would see the grid run off of the screen. Letting each person's browser make some of those determinations allows for the best overall experience.

I think the column width concept can be treated as a separate issue from the other idea you mentioned - that of adding a new column. I can add or remove columns from the table, provided that the information is available to be displayed. Unfortunately, the name of the forum is not something that I can currently display (actually, this is not 100% true - I could display it within a specific forum as a hard-coded item, but then all items would simply show the same data. What I can't so is display this information in the "all categories" discussion forum listing). This is simply one of potentially several categories on each discussion page. We'd need to implement a completely different way of identifying which forum a discussion was in in order to do this. I'll keep this on the list of requested enhancements.

Thank you again!

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 21:00, 16 December 2008 (CST)



I've seen this issue before - it has to do with the conversion of the image due to the "thumb" and/or pixel size parameters given in the line you added. For some reason that portion of the website that handles that size conversion is currently not operating properly. If you change your user page to not include the "thumb" or "100 px" parameters, the error goes away. I will advise our engineers that this is currently a problem, but until then, you can resize the image yourself and upload the smaller version to TA, rather than uploading the large image and requesting TA resize it.

If you don't have an image editing software package which can resize the image, there are several picture resizing websites out there, such as or but I can't guarantee or vouch for their effectiveness.

Let me know if my explanation doesn't make sense...

Thank you for bringing this to my attention!

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 15:08, 18 December 2008 (CST)

1099C for deceased wife

Your answers seem to make the most sense.I have a similar situation.Husband & wife, wife deceased in 2008. Rec'd 1099C for 40K in wife's name & ss#. All credit card debt. Can't the husband simply file MFS and not claim the income from 1099C? It's all unsecured debt and the husband was not even aware of it. Let me know what you think. Thanks.


JWegmann question

Hi, Larry -

the question that user asked you (that you just started a new discussion about) relates to this discussion that she started yesterday. You might want to put a copy of your post there, too?

Trillium 13:10, 28 February 2009 (CST)

The RIA info

Hi, Larry -

I removed part of your post on the Discussion:Involuntary_Entertainment_(Meal) discussion because it was text that is under RIA copyright. While you did attribute the text to RIA (with the full copyright and symbol and everything, very impressively done!), I wasn't comfortable having the info remain on the discussion since TaxAlmanac's copyright policy is that nothing should be posted that is under someone else's copyright.

As it happens, I didn't get a chance to edit your post until after Mmoll had read it and responded to it. Even so, I did leave a note on their user page to let me know if they need to see the exact wording again. (In case they're not be familiar enough with looking up the discussion history to find it on their own.)

Sorry to intrude on one of your posts like that, and like I said it might have been okay as-is, so it's not like you did anything wrong; I'm just trying to keep TaxAlmanac well on the "right side" of the rules here.

Trillium 01:44, 10 April 2009 (CDT)


Barron's May 11 issue, start page 28, had a very interesting article about Hess (ticker: HES) the company. I thought I'd mention it to you. They consider the stock a good buy. Take care. CrowJD 12:35, 10 May 2009 (CDT)

Thanks for reply On late filing of extention


Thanks for reply, I knew that section existed, but could not find it. Just what I needed.



Crow's chat thread

Are you objecting to the content? If you knew that "Fr. Mackelhenry" is also CrowJD, would that make a difference?

edited again, to remove the extra paragraph I'd added; you'd already answered by then and so it was unnecessary.

Many of Crow's discussions (and those of his several alter egos) seem to be of interest to others that frequent chat, so I've never given them much thought. Perhaps you're saying that I should?

Trillium 13:40, 14 December 2009 (CST) - edited Trillium 13:49, 14 December 2009 (CST) to add two more paragraphs


Good, thanks. I was overthinking things! (I also responded in the chat thread about your desire for a "forum" column in the "all topics" view.)

Trillium 14:10, 14 December 2009 (CST)

I'm not a betting person...

...which is probably just as well, since I get a lot wrong.

But I believe that the series of new and very pro-Quickbooks 2010 users on that discussion were either all the same person, or perhaps a group of people who interact on a Certified ProAdvisor user group site (hence the reference further down to "all having seen the same link"), having some fun at the expense of -- or for the benefit of, depending on your perspective on QB10 -- that discussion. So that "Scott" user name is likely just part of the game. Although I must admit I hadn't made the connection, even with the link to Intuit's share price on his user page.

I'd noted Stacyqb's post as possible spam (waiting to see if she posted again, perhaps with less marketing-speak, or updated her profile from the current blank slate), but it did have specifics that might be useful to someone thinking about upgrading so I didn't want to delete the post right away. And by the next time I checked back, "Scott" had posted, followed by the others, and Natalie had done a great job of flagging the posts as out of the ordinary; nicely backed up by Fred. I've been wondering about putting a note up at the top of the discussion to emphasize that it had attracted a disproportionate amount of attention from one-post users (as a warning for innocent readers to check user histories and/or profiles before taking the pro-QB10 messages as gospel), but hadn't made a move on that yet.

Interesting catch, though, Larry!

Trillium 19:44, 19 January 2010 (CST)

OIC questions

Hi Larry Thanks for your post. I am considering taking on OIC clients. Having little experience at this would you be kind enough to give me an idea of how the IRS determines what the client can pay? Is it similar to an IA where several years of liability are combined, a 433a is submitted and the IRS responds with an amount they feel the taxpayer can afford? How is the actual amount the taxpayer ends up "offering" determined?

You couldn't post a reply to the feedback discussion?

That's really weird - that's a symptom that I don't think has been reported. There should be a "tax pro reply to discussion:" box at the bottom of that page unless you're getting logged out involuntarily.

Ah - as I type that, I realize that would explain both of your issues - if the system is logging you out even when you're logged in elsewhere, then it would tend to lose the posts while you're drafting them, and would also refuse to show you the "reply to" area. I'll pass that along to Tim, and meanwhile, there's something you can do in your preferences that sometimes solves the "getting logged out" problem. I'll search that out and post it here when I find it.

Trillium 17:17, 30 January 2010 (CST)

Well, this probably wouldn't help then

Since I found the info I said I'd look for, I'll post it anyway: In preferences, on the first tab, check the 'remember across sessions' box, if it isn't already checked. This is supposed to fix issues of people being logged out unintentionally.

But you're right, sounds like your issues are something separate. Have you told Tim what browser you use? If you have access to another browser, it'd be interesting to know if the problem persists (interesting as in, might help them fix it).

Thanks, and again - sorry it's happening.

Trillium 17:29, 30 January 2010 (CST)

Partnership Penalty

I have a 2 member LLC where they had a split in early 2009, since it was a tech. termination we needed to file 2 separate 1065's. Yes, of course the client got a letter for the 1st 1065 being late and is being assessed a 1,800 penalty (2 partners - 12 months late). The K-1's

First try we sent in a certified letter asking for abatement under the rev proc. 84-35 to get penalty removed assuming both members filed returns timely by 4/15/2010. However, the exiting partner is no longer my client, and I don't know if he was on extension or not.

Not sure if they will grant penalty relief if they find out that he didn't file return by 4/15/10 (partner who isn't my client). All reading I have done showing relief is granted under timely filed returns, however, not sure if that includes extension.

Waiting to hear back from IRS on issue, but just preparing if they don't grant appeal .

Any ideas.



Albuquerque conference

I did not attend and I wish I had. You are someone I particularly want to meet.

NMexEA 18:51, 26 October 2010 (CDT)

Thanks Larry for taking the time to put a cite for the late filing.

Much appreciated.

Brgds, ZL28

I saw a post that you made regarding an LLC being treated as a joint venture if owned by a husband and wife. I agree with the concept but was wondering if you know if this has been tested. My tax reference material don't appear to give this as an option, but I am not able to come up with any reason why a partnership return would be required to be filed.


That's Kevin, actually. Trillium


is not quite as vocal as Kevin. He doesn't appear to get on people's nerves as much, either. Kevinh5


I am looking for help with the following;

Client injured on job, now in a wheel chair. Employer paying disability pay untill she received her SSI lump sum payment to cover the last 3 years. With the lump sum payment she paid back the employer. How do you suggest this be handled. It dosen't seem like she should pay 85% on this lump sum as some would think.

Llarry I sent the last message about the SSI Rmcpherson


Good guess! In this case, there are two - "Spell Czech" with the space is Harry Boscoe, and SpellCzech without the space is Kevin.

Trillium 22:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

LLC owned by husband and wife filing requirement

Re husband and wife owning an LLC that holds a 4% passive investment interest in 2 upper tier partnerships. In a Comm Prop State, but if the two are named as the two members of the LLC would it be a partnership for tax filing purposes? Could they/the LLC elect out of Subchpt K? Last year(s) it was all reported as disregarded entity, straight to Sch E, page 2 on the MFJoint return. The SS4 must have designated it as a disregarded entity, not sure however. Now am concerned that a 1065 is needed how to get started with doing that all of a sudden.

Per Diem

Hi Larry,

My understanding of the per diem deduction for over the road truck driver who is the sold share holder in a single member LLC taxed as S-Corp, only employee is that he can deduct the per diem allowance for M&IE only, not for lodging. Lodging would need to be actual expense with full recordkeeping requirements. These expenses would be deducted on form 2106. Is my understanding of the discussion thread correct in your opinion?

HI! Saw your post from 2006 about a W2 from a military contractor stationed in Iraq that had no FICA or Medicare withholding. Did you ever find out about that? I have a new client this year - same deal - no Fica or Medicare wages or withholding on the W2. He was stationed in Afghanistan for the year. I am having a hard time finding any information on this. Thanks so much!

Anita AnitaL1224 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal tools