Discussion:Self employed with part time job and home office
From TaxAlmanac
| Revision as of 20:22, 5 October 2009 Harry Boscoe (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 12:09, 6 October 2009 Smokeytax (Talk | contribs) (Death&Taxes - th) Next diff → |
||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Harry Boscoe|Date=5 October 2009|Text=Reminder to all: The question is whether the mileage is deductible, not *where* it's deductible. One question at a time, please. Refrig''pbr''erator.}} | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Harry Boscoe|Date=5 October 2009|Text=Reminder to all: The question is whether the mileage is deductible, not *where* it's deductible. One question at a time, please. Refrig''pbr''erator.}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Smokeytax|Date=6 October 2009|Text=Death&Taxes - thanks for that quote. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think there is an argument that the W-2 activity is a trade or business, and in fact the same trade or business as is shown on the schedule C. As the great tax commentator Abe Carnow says, "just read the words" in the tax law . . . | ||
| + | |||
| + | But, if the driving is deductible because the schedule C and W-2 activities are the same business, why don't we have all of our clients with W-2 income simply do a bit of consulting work out of their homes, making their commute deductible? | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think I'm going to end up advising the client that the driving to the W-2 job is a nondeductible commute. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The last thing I want is for the IRS to try to claim that some (perhaps a prorata share) of his other business deductions are allocable to the W-2 job and only deductible on schedule A, which would be a total disaster. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Not trying to make the argument that it's one single business makes sense in this case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Great discussion. Thanks to all - I really appreciate all of the points of view. | ||
| + | |||
| + | }} | ||
Revision as of 12:09, 6 October 2009
Discussion Forum Index --> Advanced Tax Questions --> Self employed with part time job and home office
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Self employed with part time job and home office
| 5 October 2009 | |
| Client is self employed and has a home office.
One day per week he drives to a W-2 generating job in the same profession as his self employment activity. He does have a home office for his self employment activity. Can we deduct the miles driving to the W-2 job? Thanks. | |
| 5 October 2009 | |
| I believe those would be commuting miles and non deductible. | |
Douglasholbrook (talk|edits) said: | 5 October 2009 |
| Actually, you're driving from one job location to another so it IS deductible. The question is whether the SE business deducts it or you have to put it on the 2106. | |
| 5 October 2009 | |
| it would NEVER go on the Sch C
and would only go on the 2106 depending on whether the person actually worked both locations the same day (perhaps with only one way being deductible). | |
Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said: | 5 October 2009 |
| Is there *one* trade or business or *two*? | |
| 5 October 2009 | |
| *why* would that matter? One job pays a W-2 to the *employee*. The business pays net profit to the *proprietor*. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 5 October 2009 |
| Harry raises an interesting issue. In my area, freelance musicians receive W-2 forms from one contractor and 1099s from others. They have no control over how they are paid, or very little. One semi-major orchestra even went from having a combination of employees and subcontractors to putting all on 1099s, and this was contested by the Musician's union. At least one person filed an SS-8 with no results.
The City of Philadelphia's regulations consider someone who plays for a contractor to be the employee of that contractor, even if they do not withhold the wage tax. | |
| 5 October 2009 | |
| while that's interesting, DT, it doesn't change the fact that expenses allocable to being an employee are employee business expenses, while expenses allocable to being in your own business are Sch C deductions. | |
Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said: | 5 October 2009 |
| If the taxpayer has only *one* trade or business [which he pursues as a sole proprietor Monday through Thursday, and as an employee on Friday] I see *no way* he can be denied the mileage deduction... | |
| 5 October 2009 | |
| Harry - Actually, that's exactly the case. Client is a music teacher, teaching both at a school plus for private clients. | |
| 5 October 2009 | |
| The problem is that where he works is his office as applies to the home office deduction and mileage deductions appertaining thereto, but a home (and not a business location) as applies to the W-2 job. So, it's commuting.
I am assuming that the day he devotes to his W-2 job, he teaches no private lessons. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 5 October 2009 |
| Rev. Rul. 99-7:
"Finally, Rev. Rul. 94-47 amplifies Rev. Rul. 190 and Rev. Rul. 90-23 to provide that, if the taxpayer’s residence is the taxpayer’s principal place of business within the meaning of § 280A(c)(1)(A), the taxpayer may deduct daily transportation expenses incurred in going between the taxpayer’s residence and another work location in the same trade or business, regardless of whether the other work location is regular or temporary and regardless of the distance. ....... "If an office in the taxpayer’s residence satisfies the principal place of business requirements of § 280A(c)(1)(A), then the residence is considered a business location for purposes of Rev. Rul. 90-23 or Rev. Rul. 94-47. In these circumstances, the daily transportation expenses incurred in going between the residence and other work locations in the same trade or business are ordinary and necessary business expenses (deductible under § 162(a))." | |
| 5 October 2009 | |
| It doesn't go on the 2106 or sched c. It's not a business expense or employee expense. The drive from job 1 to job 2 is a misc expense on sched a.
That's assuming that he works both jobs on the same day. | |
| 5 October 2009 | |
| D'oh! Well, if you're going to pull out the law on us, that takes the sport out of it. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 5 October 2009 |
| Being an employee is a trade or business when it comes to Section 179. | |
| 5 October 2009 | |
| There's some of us that have to face the music. I ask that my analysis be stricken from the record. | |
Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said: | 5 October 2009 |
| Smokeytax wrote: "Harry - Actually, that's exactly the case. Client is a music teacher, teaching both at a school plus for private clients."
I'm going to stay with my conditional "if...then" about one or two trades or businesses. You'ld be surprised what the IRS might think about two versus one... Remember when IRS held that being a "teacher" wasn't the same trade or business as being a "teacher"...? I have a strong intuition that if the IRS had already addressed this issue favorably, *all* of us would already know about it. Continue the search. | |
Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said: | 5 October 2009 |
| Reminder to all: The question is whether the mileage is deductible, not *where* it's deductible. One question at a time, please. Refrigpbrerator. | |
| 6 October 2009 | |
| Death&Taxes - thanks for that quote.
I think there is an argument that the W-2 activity is a trade or business, and in fact the same trade or business as is shown on the schedule C. As the great tax commentator Abe Carnow says, "just read the words" in the tax law . . . But, if the driving is deductible because the schedule C and W-2 activities are the same business, why don't we have all of our clients with W-2 income simply do a bit of consulting work out of their homes, making their commute deductible? I think I'm going to end up advising the client that the driving to the W-2 job is a nondeductible commute. The last thing I want is for the IRS to try to claim that some (perhaps a prorata share) of his other business deductions are allocable to the W-2 job and only deductible on schedule A, which would be a total disaster. Not trying to make the argument that it's one single business makes sense in this case. Great discussion. Thanks to all - I really appreciate all of the points of view. | |


