TaxAlmanac - Recent changes [en]

User talk:Cpa297

Esa6334 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:59:50 GMT

Revision as of 23:59, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Thanks,		Thanks,
	Heather		Heather
		+
		+	I started my firm about 6 years ago and would love to talk to you about what's worked and what hasn't. i'm a sole practitioner as well.
		+
		+	Liz Alexander, CPA
		+	817-492-1040

Discussion:Distributing real estate from an LLC

ThinkTax — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:48:18 GMT

DavidFogel: "Si

Revision as of 23:48, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 38:		Line 38:
	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=KatieBrewer\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Taxworld2: FOr income tax purposes, having the S corp own 100% of the LLC will be as if the S corp owned directly the assets in the LLC, including the real estate, so that doesn't get you anywhere except to future doom. You are on the right planning track, however. But here's an alternative suggestion. Have the current LLC drop the real estate down into a single member LLC, but the bank can own a special purpose interest in the LLC to protect their voting rights from the LLC going into bankruptcy. I don't have the specific cite at my hands, but the IRS recongizes that when the bank holds this special purpose LLC interest for protection of having the assets in the SMLLC from going into bankruptcy, the LLC is still considered a SMLLC for income tax purposes, and you don't have to do any real reorganization outside of that, and the current LLC gets the full use and enjoyment of the real estate as it already has. Of course, the existing LLC and the S Corp/S corp shareholders probably want some indemnification agreement for putting the LLC assets at risk. Just an althernative thought to your client's real issue of making the bank happy.		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=KatieBrewer\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Taxworld2: FOr income tax purposes, having the S corp own 100% of the LLC will be as if the S corp owned directly the assets in the LLC, including the real estate, so that doesn't get you anywhere except to future doom. You are on the right planning track, however. But here's an alternative suggestion. Have the current LLC drop the real estate down into a single member LLC, but the bank can own a special purpose interest in the LLC to protect their voting rights from the LLC going into bankruptcy. I don't have the specific cite at my hands, but the IRS recongizes that when the bank holds this special purpose LLC interest for protection of having the assets in the SMLLC from going into bankruptcy, the LLC is still considered a SMLLC for income tax purposes, and you don't have to do any real reorganization outside of that, and the current LLC gets the full use and enjoyment of the real estate as it already has. Of course, the existing LLC and the S Corp/S corp shareholders probably want some indemnification agreement for putting the LLC assets at risk. Just an althernative thought to your client's real issue of making the bank happy.
	}}		}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=ThinkTax\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=DavidFogel: "Since the LLC is treated as a partnership, partnership rules apply to distributions (generally, no gain unless FMV of property exceeds partner's basis)."
		+
		+	Actually, the property's value for distribution purposes is the partnership's basis immediately before the distribution. Excluding any hot assets, the disguised sale provisions, etc., gain is not recognized unless cash or marketable securities are distributed in excess of the partner's basis.}}

Discussion:COD from Related Party Installment Note

Jimmer — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:45:59 GMT

Sorry, I'm just

Revision as of 23:45, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 54:		Line 54:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Gfisher\|Date=3 November 2009\|Text=Wouldn't the LLC have a bad debt when it wrote off the receivables? This may or may not be deductible, depending on whether the income was also reported on the installment basis and both entities (since they're related) report on the same timing.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Gfisher\|Date=3 November 2009\|Text=Wouldn't the LLC have a bad debt when it wrote off the receivables? This may or may not be deductible, depending on whether the income was also reported on the installment basis and both entities (since they're related) report on the same timing.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Jimmer\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Sorry, I'm just getting back to this topic.
		+
		+	After reviewing Section 108, I've come to the following conclusions (correct me where I stray):
		+
		+	You can do a Purchase money debt reduction in the event the buyer (in my case an S-Corp) of the land on installment is solvent. If the buyer is insolvent (as is the case in my client's situation)then a reduction isn't necessary anyway, as the COD income will be excluded from gross income to the extent the client is insolvent.
		+
		+	I assume if the COD income exceeds the amount of insolvency, a purchase money debt reduction can be done to the extent of the solvency of the S Corp, right?
		+
		+	I also assume for the seller, in either case (purchase money debt reduction or discharge of indebtedness), the seller debits the remaining deferred gain, and credits the note receivable.
		+
		+	For the buyer, under a Purchase Money Debt Reduction, (i.e. the buyer is solvent), the note payable is reduced and the land (in this case inventory) is reduced, but under discharge of indebtedness (i.e. the seller is insolvent), the credit is "COD income", which is excluded from gross income via Form 982 to the extent of insolvency of the S-Corp.
		+
		+	Do those look like the correct entries? TIA.}}

Discussion:Book value of Vehicle

KatieBrewer — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:37:11 GMT

One last thought

Revision as of 23:37, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 63:		Line 63:

	}}		}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=KatieBrewer\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=One last thought, Jasmine. Not sure what the sales/transfer tax on the vehicle will be in your state, but you should remind your client that there may be some DMV fees related to this "sale" when he registers the vehicle personally, if appropriate. }}

Discussion:Climate Change Survey

Belle — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:18:57 GMT

Kevin - what ''a

Revision as of 23:18, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 11:		Line 11:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I don't care what the climate is, you can go ahead and change the survey. It's OK with me. But it's raining cats and dogs here in Western North Carolina today. When I went out for lunch I stepped in a poodle.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I don't care what the climate is, you can go ahead and change the survey. It's OK with me. But it's raining cats and dogs here in Western North Carolina today. When I went out for lunch I stepped in a poodle.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Belle\|Date=December 2, 2009\|Text=Kevin - what ''are'' you on today? <g>}}

Discussion:Book value of Vehicle

JasmineCPA — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:08 GMT

Thanks kevin. T

Revision as of 23:13, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 55:		Line 55:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Jasmine, I'd suggest you flesh out how he would accomplish what he wants to accomplish, then figure out the tax implication of each step. But if there is no gain, there is no income tax on the 'sale' portion. If he doesn't pay but wants to take it as a distribution, you have basis issues to consider. And that depends partly on past and present profit in his S corp. So yeah, I could easily see where he could accomplish this without any income tax, but again, I think it would be foolish to do so from a tax standpoint. Think through what his basis for gain/loss will be once he owns the vehicle personally. And since it is now a personal use asset, what becomes of the prior business loss. }}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Jasmine, I'd suggest you flesh out how he would accomplish what he wants to accomplish, then figure out the tax implication of each step. But if there is no gain, there is no income tax on the 'sale' portion. If he doesn't pay but wants to take it as a distribution, you have basis issues to consider. And that depends partly on past and present profit in his S corp. So yeah, I could easily see where he could accomplish this without any income tax, but again, I think it would be foolish to do so from a tax standpoint. Think through what his basis for gain/loss will be once he owns the vehicle personally. And since it is now a personal use asset, what becomes of the prior business loss. }}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Thanks kevin.
		+
		+	Truly all he wants to do is buy the freakin car with no money out of pocket and not have to pay tax.
		+
		+	That's it. You had some good advice and I appreciate it.
		+
		+	}}

Discussion:Foreign LLC

Foxtron — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:09:26 GMT

FICA taxes are t

Revision as of 23:09, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 46:		Line 46:

	I don't believe that section 3121(l) has anything to do with employees being treated as self employed.}}		I don't believe that section 3121(l) has anything to do with employees being treated as self employed.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Foxtron\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=FICA taxes are those arising from the 1937 law — the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA). The titles under §1401(a) and (b) and §3101 (a) and (b) are both ''Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance'' and ''Hospital insurance'' respectively. Most of the tax professionals I know use the term ''FICA taxes'' for both employees and self employed individuals. I maybe wrong, and please do correct me, but I do not think the Code anywhere implicitly identifies FICA taxes as employees-only.
		+
		+	}}

Discussion:NOL C Corporation filed greater than 3 yrs late

Ss-cpa — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:06:27 GMT

New Discussion

New page

{{Advanced Tax Questions}}


{{ForumNewPost|UserID=Ss-cpa|Date=2 December 2009|Text=I have a new client that elected S Status effective 1/1/05. The corporation was organized in June, 2003. The taxpayer did not file a return for 2003 and filed a return incorrectly as an S Corporation in 2004, noting the S election to be effective since inception. In 2004, the corporation had an approximate loss of $60K. The 100% shareholder's personal return recorded the losses as losses not at risk and no losses from the corporate activities were claimed. The IRS verified the 1/1/05 effective date for the S election. They treated the 2004 return filed on the S forms as a zero tax due C return. It is my understanding that the 2004 return filed on the S forms did not meet the requirements of the Code and could have been rejected. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-1. Given the fact that the IRS treated the filing as a C Corporation filing with no taxes due, and presumably no NOL calculated for carryover purposes, would it be appropriate to file a new 2004 return as a C Corporation with the NOL to be carried back and forward to 2005 or has the time period lapsed for the carryforward of this NOL to 2005, (i.e. since the return would be filed more than three years after the extended due date of the return)? There is no activity in 2003, so the C Corporation return to be filed for this year will be a no activity return and no 2004 losses will be carried back to recoup taxes paid for 2003. That would not be allowed anyway by section 6511(d)(2). I am not clear if I am prevented from carrying the loss forward to 2005 to offset any potential built-in gains taxes or to offset income in future C years with taxable income. Can someone shed light on this? }}

Discussion:Form 706-estate tax penalties

Tdh555 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:01:05 GMT

New Discussion

New page

{{Advanced Tax Questions}}


{{ForumNewPost|UserID=Tdh555|Date=2 December 2009|Text=Is the penalty for "under valuing" assets 50% of the related tax due (or 20%)? Also, is there a late penalty for filing past the extended due date if all taxes have been paid with a form 4768 deposit? I have not done a 706 which owed taxes in several years. Thank you.
}}

Discussion:Amended Returns Statute of Limitation

Taxguy1024 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:54:51 GMT

I believe that t

Revision as of 22:54, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 31:		Line 31:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=which is why I asked whether you were asking about the ASED in the first response above. You were, but really you were not.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=which is why I asked whether you were asking about the ASED in the first response above. You were, but really you were not.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Taxguy1024\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I believe that the only time an amended return extends the ASED is if an amended return showing an increase of tax is received within 60 days of the ASED. In that instance, the statute on the original return is extended until 60 after the receipt of that amended return.}}

Discussion:Amended Returns Statute of Limitation

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:52:12 GMT

which is why I a

Revision as of 22:52, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 27:		Line 27:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Eric1979\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I see what you are saying (I think). If his taxes were paid as of April 15, 2006 then he may not have any tax to go back and get even if technically we can file a 1040X.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Eric1979\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I see what you are saying (I think). If his taxes were paid as of April 15, 2006 then he may not have any tax to go back and get even if technically we can file a 1040X.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=exactly}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=which is why I asked whether you were asking about the ASED in the first response above. You were, but really you were not.}}

Discussion:Distributing real estate from an LLC

KatieBrewer — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:48:53 GMT

Taxworld2: FOr

Revision as of 22:48, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 35:		Line 35:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=does he control the current LLC which owns the real estate, or is he one small member of many many many members? The problem is with the collateral - he has none apparantly.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=does he control the current LLC which owns the real estate, or is he one small member of many many many members? The problem is with the collateral - he has none apparantly.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=KatieBrewer\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Taxworld2: FOr income tax purposes, having the S corp own 100% of the LLC will be as if the S corp owned directly the assets in the LLC, including the real estate, so that doesn't get you anywhere except to future doom. You are on the right planning track, however. But here's an alternative suggestion. Have the current LLC drop the real estate down into a single member LLC, but the bank can own a special purpose interest in the LLC to protect their voting rights from the LLC going into bankruptcy. I don't have the specific cite at my hands, but the IRS recongizes that when the bank holds this special purpose LLC interest for protection of having the assets in the SMLLC from going into bankruptcy, the LLC is still considered a SMLLC for income tax purposes, and you don't have to do any real reorganization outside of that, and the current LLC gets the full use and enjoyment of the real estate as it already has. Of course, the existing LLC and the S Corp/S corp shareholders probably want some indemnification agreement for putting the LLC assets at risk. Just an althernative thought to your client's real issue of making the bank happy.
		+	}}

Discussion:Amended Returns Statute of Limitation

Eric1979 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:48:16 GMT

I see what you a

Revision as of 22:48, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 25:		Line 25:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Gosh this TaxAmanac is great training for being a psychologist!!!! What does the questioner really mean by his question? It never means what he says it means in the original post.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Gosh this TaxAmanac is great training for being a psychologist!!!! What does the questioner really mean by his question? It never means what he says it means in the original post.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Eric1979\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I see what you are saying (I think). If his taxes were paid as of April 15, 2006 then he may not have any tax to go back and get even if technically we can file a 1040X.}}

Discussion:Amended Returns Statute of Limitation

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:47:26 GMT

Gosh this TaxAma

Revision as of 22:47, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 21:		Line 21:

	surprisingly i could find anything when i researched this. this is one of those things that is frustrating bc you know you arent the first one to run across this problem.}}		surprisingly i could find anything when i researched this. this is one of those things that is frustrating bc you know you arent the first one to run across this problem.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I think you need to look at the statute for applying for a refund, and not the statute for assessment. When did he make the last payment on the 2005 tax? How much potential refund is within the refund statute period?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Gosh this TaxAmanac is great training for being a psychologist!!!! What does the questioner really mean by his question? It never means what he says it means in the original post.}}

Discussion:Distributing real estate from an LLC

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:42:33 GMT

does he control

Revision as of 22:42, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 33:		Line 33:
	TW		TW
	}}		}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=does he control the current LLC which owns the real estate, or is he one small member of many many many members? The problem is with the collateral - he has none apparantly.}}

Discussion:Amended Returns Statute of Limitation

Eric1979 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:40:11 GMT

good question ke

Revision as of 22:40, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 17:		Line 17:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I guess I'm asking you to state the connection between the assessment statute and the refund statute. Each stands alone.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I guess I'm asking you to state the connection between the assessment statute and the refund statute. Each stands alone.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Eric1979\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=good question kevin. the answer is that the dates I was using were just to show an example. my case is actually for tax year 2005 & first 1040X in 2007. The taxpayer now came to us and we they completely left off a deduction that would really help them. However, I dont know if the statute ran out April 15 of 2009 or if their amended return in 2007 extends the amount of time we have to do a second return.
		+
		+	surprisingly i could find anything when i researched this. this is one of those things that is frustrating bc you know you arent the first one to run across this problem.}}

Discussion:Book value of Vehicle

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:39:07 GMT

Jasmine, I'd sug

Revision as of 22:39, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 53:		Line 53:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Harry - that would be the correct market value no. The fair value of the car should equal the market value. less the book value = a nondeductible loss on sale (unless he sells to someone else and can claim 40%)}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Harry - that would be the correct market value no. The fair value of the car should equal the market value. less the book value = a nondeductible loss on sale (unless he sells to someone else and can claim 40%)}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Jasmine, I'd suggest you flesh out how he would accomplish what he wants to accomplish, then figure out the tax implication of each step. But if there is no gain, there is no income tax on the 'sale' portion. If he doesn't pay but wants to take it as a distribution, you have basis issues to consider. And that depends partly on past and present profit in his S corp. So yeah, I could easily see where he could accomplish this without any income tax, but again, I think it would be foolish to do so from a tax standpoint. Think through what his basis for gain/loss will be once he owns the vehicle personally. And since it is now a personal use asset, what becomes of the prior business loss. }}

Discussion:Distributing real estate from an LLC

Taxworld2 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:36:57 GMT

Thank you for th

Revision as of 22:36, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 22:		Line 22:

	I agree with Dgmcpapc regarding the tax consequences. Since the LLC is treated as a partnership, partnership rules apply to distributions (generally, no gain unless FMV of property exceeds partner's basis).}}		I agree with Dgmcpapc regarding the tax consequences. Since the LLC is treated as a partnership, partnership rules apply to distributions (generally, no gain unless FMV of property exceeds partner's basis).}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Taxworld2\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Thank you for the comments. You guys are the champs!
		+
		+	LLC is taxed as a partnership.
		+
		+	Client wants to obtain bank financing for his S corporation and the bankers will not consider a loan without some sort of real estate collateral. The S corp does not have real estate. He's asked if he should have the S corp purchase real estate from an LLC that he is a member of. I told him no this is a bad idea because you then can't remove the real estate from the S corporation without a taxable event if in the future he needed to. I began to wonder if the S corporation were to own 100% of an LLC (disregarded entity) that held the real estate that this might create the necessary collateral. Not sure this makes sense however. Then I thought perhaps he can simply own the real estate individually and guarantee the bank note. I'm still looking for examples of this scenario.
		+
		+	Thanks,
		+
		+	TW
		+	}}

Discussion:Hawaii Preparers

Wonder Woman USA — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:33:39 GMT

Thanks, folks ..

Revision as of 22:33, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 17:		Line 17:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Natalie\|Date=December 2, 2009\|Text=For technical questions, you can call 808-587-1577 or send an email to tax.technical.section@hawaii.gov. Otherwise you can send an email to taxpayer.services@hawaii.gov.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Natalie\|Date=December 2, 2009\|Text=For technical questions, you can call 808-587-1577 or send an email to tax.technical.section@hawaii.gov. Otherwise you can send an email to taxpayer.services@hawaii.gov.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Wonder Woman USA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Thanks, folks .. I hope they can tell me how much was withheld!}}

Discussion:Amended Returns Statute of Limitation

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:33:23 GMT

Revision as of 22:33, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 13:		Line 13:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Eric1979\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=What I was thinking about was how long we would have to file a 2nd amended return. So per my above example, does filing the amended return on April 15, 2010 allow me to amend their return again until April 15, 2013.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Eric1979\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=What I was thinking about was how long we would have to file a 2nd amended return. So per my above example, does filing the amended return on April 15, 2010 allow me to amend their return again until April 15, 2013.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=what would you hope to accomplish by doing that? If you know there are corrections, why not make them all at once?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I guess I'm asking you to state the connection between the assessment statute and the refund statute. Each stands alone.}}

Discussion:Donate vacant land

DaveFogel — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:28:22 GMT

Agree with the o

Revision as of 22:28, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 28:		Line 28:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=because of the FMV limit.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=because of the FMV limit.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=DaveFogel\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Agree with the others. See [[Reg. 1.170A-1]](c).}}

Discussion:New NOL carryback/forward

JasmineCPA — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:26:34 GMT

2006 amended tax

Revision as of 22:26, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 13:		Line 13:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Blrgcpa\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=An NOL for 2008 or 2009 can be carried back 5 years.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Blrgcpa\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=An NOL for 2008 or 2009 can be carried back 5 years.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=2006 amended tax return due to the partnership return being amended. 2006 was never filed so there is no carryback. My apologies. 2007 and 2008 havent been filed due to litigation. Can we still carry the 2006 NOL excess (which did not reduce SE tax) to 2007 and 2008? How far into the future?}}

Discussion:Amended Returns Statute of Limitation

Eric1979 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:26:03 GMT

What I was think

Revision as of 22:26, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 11:		Line 11:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Irsfixer\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=An amended return does not affect the assessment statute. In your example, the SOL for a 2007 return filed on 04/15/08 is up in 2011 - not 2010.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Irsfixer\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=An amended return does not affect the assessment statute. In your example, the SOL for a 2007 return filed on 04/15/08 is up in 2011 - not 2010.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Eric1979\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=What I was thinking about was how long we would have to file a 2nd amended return. So per my above example, does filing the amended return on April 15, 2010 allow me to amend their return again until April 15, 2013.}}

Discussion:Book value of Vehicle

JasmineCPA — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:24:38 GMT

Harry - that wou

Revision as of 22:24, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 51:		Line 51:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Ha. Come on...any thought if he truly wanted to buy the vehicle? Is there tax on the sale? anything else I need to be weary about? What would you say Kev?}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Ha. Come on...any thought if he truly wanted to buy the vehicle? Is there tax on the sale? anything else I need to be weary about? What would you say Kev?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Harry - that would be the correct market value no. The fair value of the car should equal the market value. less the book value = a nondeductible loss on sale (unless he sells to someone else and can claim 40%)}}

Discussion:Another 280A Vacation Home Audit

Illini — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:22:43 GMT

thanks for the e

Revision as of 22:22, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 147:		Line 147:

	Thanks, Harry, for keeping me on my toes!}}		Thanks, Harry, for keeping me on my toes!}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Illini\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=thanks for the explanation, Dave. Very useful information for most of us.}}

Discussion:Book value of Vehicle

JasmineCPA — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:22:37 GMT

Revision as of 22:22, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 49:		Line 49:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Little People of America is what Google said. Maybe you have to get down to his level and not talk down to him.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Little People of America is what Google said. Maybe you have to get down to his level and not talk down to him.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Ha. Come on...any thought if he truly wanted to buy the vehicle? Is there tax on the sale? anything else I need to be weary about? What would you say Kev?}}

Discussion:Book value of Vehicle

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:20:02 GMT

Little People of

Revision as of 22:20, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 45:		Line 45:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=True....so really, there is no reason to take the $15,000 distribution? It does nothing to save tax....correct. He's an LPA and really hard to talk to. Can you give me a quick cliff note version of what you'd say if he was dead set on buying it for $15k?}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=True....so really, there is no reason to take the $15,000 distribution? It does nothing to save tax....correct. He's an LPA and really hard to talk to. Can you give me a quick cliff note version of what you'd say if he was dead set on buying it for $15k?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I don't know what an LPA is, Licensed Public @hole?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Little People of America is what Google said. Maybe you have to get down to his level and not talk down to him.}}

Discussion:Distributing real estate from an LLC

DaveFogel — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:17:36 GMT

Since Taxworld2

Revision as of 22:17, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 18:		Line 18:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I disagree. First, you have to determine how the LLC is taxed. Then you will be half-way to your answers. Taxworld hasn't answered the first question yet.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I disagree. First, you have to determine how the LLC is taxed. Then you will be half-way to your answers. Taxworld hasn't answered the first question yet.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=DaveFogel\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Since Taxworld2 says that the LLC has "members" and is asking about an S corporation, I think we can safely assume that the LLC has more than one member and that it's treated as a partnership under the check-the-box regulations.
		+
		+	I agree with Dgmcpapc regarding the tax consequences. Since the LLC is treated as a partnership, partnership rules apply to distributions (generally, no gain unless FMV of property exceeds partner's basis).}}

Discussion:Donate vacant land

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:17:05 GMT

because of the F

Revision as of 22:17, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 26:		Line 26:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Nshnider\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=still why wouldn't meet the exception to use basis as the deduction}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Nshnider\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=still why wouldn't meet the exception to use basis as the deduction}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=because of the FMV limit.}}

Discussion:Eligible small business for new nol carryback rules

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:15:00 GMT

I know this was

Revision as of 22:15, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 3:		Line 3:

	{{ForumNewPost\|UserID=Havasugal\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Does a real estate professional rental losses qualify as eligible small business loss entitled to use the 3-5 yr carryback for the nol?}}		{{ForumNewPost\|UserID=Havasugal\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Does a real estate professional rental losses qualify as eligible small business loss entitled to use the 3-5 yr carryback for the nol?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I know this was answered at least twice in the last 3 or 4 months. Have you tried using the yellow search box?}}

Discussion:Amended Returns Statute of Limitation

Irsfixer — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:14:42 GMT

An amended retur

Revision as of 22:14, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 9:		Line 9:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=do you mean the ASED?}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=do you mean the ASED?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Irsfixer\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=An amended return does not affect the assessment statute. In your example, the SOL for a 2007 return filed on 04/15/08 is up in 2011 - not 2010.}}

Discussion:New Law Home Buyer Credit Q

Tdh555 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:14:40 GMT

Thank you all...

Revision as of 22:14, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 19:		Line 19:

	Oh, and by the way, the IRS's latest FAQ update addresses the question Tdh555 asked, and confirms the two posts on the 20th.}}		Oh, and by the way, the IRS's latest FAQ update addresses the question Tdh555 asked, and confirms the two posts on the 20th.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Tdh555\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Thank you all...great responses.}}

Discussion:Book value of Vehicle

JasmineCPA — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:14:19 GMT

True....so reall

Revision as of 22:14, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 43:		Line 43:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=he pays the tax on his S corp profit whether or not he takes it out in distributions, but you already have explained that to him, I'm sure.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=he pays the tax on his S corp profit whether or not he takes it out in distributions, but you already have explained that to him, I'm sure.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=True....so really, there is no reason to take the $15,000 distribution? It does nothing to save tax....correct. He's an LPA and really hard to talk to. Can you give me a quick cliff note version of what you'd say if he was dead set on buying it for $15k?}}

Discussion:Donate vacant land

Nshnider — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:14:03 GMT

still why wouldn

Revision as of 22:14, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 24:		Line 24:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=here is a free 'bonus' use: hold it until it is worth $100, then YOU donate it to the church of your choice. Then you get a bigger deduction than your basis! Win-Win-Win all around!!!!!}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=here is a free 'bonus' use: hold it until it is worth $100, then YOU donate it to the church of your choice. Then you get a bigger deduction than your basis! Win-Win-Win all around!!!!!}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Nshnider\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=still why wouldn't meet the exception to use basis as the deduction}}

Discussion:Amended Returns Statute of Limitation

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:13:38 GMT

do you mean the

Revision as of 22:13, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 7:		Line 7:

	You file your 2007 return on April 15, 2008 so your statute of limitations would normally be until April 15, 2011. But lets say that you file an amended return on April 15, 2010. Does your statute of limitations for 2007 expire in 2010 or 2013? }}		You file your 2007 return on April 15, 2008 so your statute of limitations would normally be until April 15, 2011. But lets say that you file an amended return on April 15, 2010. Does your statute of limitations for 2007 expire in 2010 or 2013? }}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=do you mean the ASED?}}

Discussion:Book value of Vehicle

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:11:44 GMT

he pays the tax

Revision as of 22:11, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 41:		Line 41:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Scorp}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Scorp}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=he pays the tax on his S corp profit whether or not he takes it out in distributions, but you already have explained that to him, I'm sure.}}

Discussion:501 (c)(3) Application and DBA

Natalie — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:11:12 GMT

Yes, it's allowe

Revision as of 22:11, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 16:		Line 16:

	The question is whether the DBA is allowed as part of the 1023 application process. If so, would it need to be discussed in the narrative section?}}		The question is whether the DBA is allowed as part of the 1023 application process. If so, would it need to be discussed in the narrative section?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Natalie\|Date=December 2, 2009\|Text=Yes, it's allowed. I would recommend mentioning it somewhere in the application or narrative. }}

User:Gpacpa

Gpacpa — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:09:56 GMT

Revision as of 22:09, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	[[Image:Nopic.JPG\|frame\|left\|{{PAGENAME}}]] '''Hello, my name is John Doe and I go by the nickname {{PAGENAME}}'''. I must be fairly new here as I haven't yet entered my real information on this page to help others better judge who I am. I'll get to it eventually though, perhaps adding information such as whether I am a CPA, an EA, etc., where I practice, my areas of expertise, and also perhaps a little about me personally.	+	''Hello, my name is Gary Allen and I go by the nickname "gpacpa". I am a practicing CPA in Yreka, California. Yreka is in the far northern part of the state on I-5. I have been a practicing accountant for over 30 years and love helping people solve their tax and financial problems. In addition, I have been using Lacerte for over 20 years and would not change for anything. This is a great product. Please feel free to contact me anytime.
-		+
-	If you'd like to leave me a message, just select the discussion tab at the top of this page.	+

	Thank you!		Thank you!

-	{{PAGENAME}}	+	{{gpacpa}}
-		+
-		+
-	<!-- DELETE EVERYTHING FROM HERE TO THE END WHEN YOU UPDATE YOUR PROFILE.-->	+
-		+
-	{{Template:Note to New Users}}	+

Discussion:Gifts to contractors

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:09:48 GMT

I'm too busy bei

Revision as of 22:09, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 20:		Line 20:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Harry Boscoe\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Wanna learn more about gift cards, you should ask the Baltimayor...}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Harry Boscoe\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Wanna learn more about gift cards, you should ask the Baltimayor...}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I'm too busy being me to try to be Facetious, Clark. I wouldn't even know how to dress like him.}}

Discussion:Book value of Vehicle

JasmineCPA — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:08:28 GMT

Scorp

Revision as of 22:08, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 39:		Line 39:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=is the company an S corp or a C corp?}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=is the company an S corp or a C corp?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=JasmineCPA\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Scorp}}

Discussion:Donate vacant land

Kevinh5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:07:54 GMT

here is a free '

Revision as of 22:07, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 20:		Line 20:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Nshnider\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=what would I do with it. So one of the exceptions to the rule is if the organization does not use it for its purpose you can deduct basis why wouldn't this apply in this case?}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Nshnider\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=what would I do with it. So one of the exceptions to the rule is if the organization does not use it for its purpose you can deduct basis why wouldn't this apply in this case?}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=I gave you 2 potential uses for it.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Kevinh5\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=here is a free 'bonus' use: hold it until it is worth $100, then YOU donate it to the church of your choice. Then you get a bigger deduction than your basis! Win-Win-Win all around!!!!!}}

Discussion:Gifts to contractors

Harry Boscoe — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:05:48 GMT

Wanna learn more

Revision as of 22:05, 2 December 2009		Current revision
Line 18:		Line 18:

	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Clark1919\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Unless you are being facetious, their "title" as associates has nothing to do with their classification. Classification deals with if they are an employee or an independent contractor.}}		{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Clark1919\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Unless you are being facetious, their "title" as associates has nothing to do with their classification. Classification deals with if they are an employee or an independent contractor.}}
		+
		+	{{ForumReplyPost\|UserID=Harry Boscoe\|Date=2 December 2009\|Text=Wanna learn more about gift cards, you should ask the Baltimayor...}}