Livin' off

[Black Bart]

somewhere -- got a client who's fully supportin' his 40-somethin' deadbeat son who gets no income, no SS, no nothing. Question: Is he a dependent?

I always thought they had to live with you (unless it's that HH with parent living elsewhere thing). Reading the "Dependency Test for 2006" (TTB 3-15); the qualifying child has to be home six months and unrelateds have to be there 12 months, but on the "Qualifying Relative" side of the page, it doesn't say anything about a son (he's technically not a child--he's 40) having to live there for any period of time. It does mention that any other person (non-related, girl friend, etc.) does have to be there 12 months, but still, I don't see anything about the son having to live there -- or even anything about temporary absences, etc., etc.

So, is this like I'm thinking? They can use him as a dependent -- or is this just temporary insanity/misguided thinkin'?

P.S. If you know, you can answer too, Lou. I'm not holdin' all that fish-house talk against you.

[jainen]

The old rules

The old rules haven't changed, Black Bart. They just have a new name, "qualifying relative." Rule #2 is a real two-fer. EITHER be a close relative, OR be a member of the household.

[Black Bart]

Thanks jc,

The old rules haven't changed, Black Bart. They just have a new name, "qualifying relative." Rule #2 is a real two-fer. EITHER be a close relative, OR be a member of the household.

Was that a yes or a no? He lives across town in a trailer they've rented for him.

P.S. I bet you might write off that race car just to take the contrarian position if you thought the owners were halfway-sincere, it was halfway-arguable, and the unpopular thing to do.

[jainen]

what we're going with

Hey cut that out! You ask a question, and then edit out the heart of it before I can compose some witty response. I already tried saying it straight, but nobody even noticed. It lay there for more than six hours, and you finally come back on to yes-n-no me. It's 10 p.m. here now, and I'm not about to wait another six hours so I gotta put down something hot. "Contrarian position" my eye!

When we say "close relative," I can see how you might think someone who lives on the other side of town wouldn't qualify. Especially if you happened to be from a Darwinian-challenged town that doesn't understand the whole Mendel's garden thing. Well, don't worry, because that language is just showing off -- it isn't really what Congress wrote. The code says "child," and although one meaning is young person, another is son/daughter and that's what we're going with.

[Black Bart]

Black-eyed peas

Didn't that Men-dell boy have somethin' to do with growin' em? Never mind about Darwin; I know those "Southern" jokes when I hear them and I am immune (don't mention my sister). Sorry about puttin' you off for six hours, but I went to bed right after we closed up today and just got up.

I hate to belabor the point, but don't know any other way to put it. Are you saying he is a dependent or is not a dependent? Thank you very much (I hope).

About that parkin' ticket on the other thread, it looks like your attempts at humor (kinda like mine) are not appreciated, besides which, according to the others, you may have to take your position on it to the Supreme Court. Personally, I tend to just shut up and sulk about it for a while (like when Louie Moped dissed me back there).

[jainen]

routing numbers

>>Are you saying he is a dependent or is not a dependent?<<

Yeah, okay, he's a dependent. And his parents are co-dependents.

I wasn't griping about you those six hours; I've noticed your schedule before and all I can figger is you're on the other side of the dateline. But what about everybody else? I can say something completely stupid like, "there is no such thing as the racing business," and the board lights up! But a nice wholesome observation about a mother who loves her son, and everyone would rather talk about routing numbers!

[Black Bart]

>>...your schedule...all I can figger is you're on the other side of the dateline..

I guess it does sound pretty strange, but it's just what habit you get into. We close at five and have an apartment in back of the office building. Lots of times I'll go eat supper, watch a little TV, doze off on the couch (sounds exciting, doesn't it?), wake back up at 11-12-1, go back up front, work 'til five, go back and hit the sack 'til nine and open up again. I know it's sounds a little crazy to normal people, but it works for me.

...But what about everybody else? I can say something completely stupid like, "there is no such thing as the racing business," and the board lights up! But a nice wholesome observation about a mother who loves her son, and everyone would rather talk about routing numbers!

Well, in truth, of course, there really isn't any such thing as the racing "business" for 99% of the people. I'm working to get them a tax write-off and they generally don't have a snowball's chance of ever making a profit, so I guess from a purist (honest) point of view, it couldn't really be considered a business -- years before NASA, some scientist said "Well, yes; manned spaceflight is possible, but it's a long shot."

I have to say though, you'd be a terrific lawyer. Like your interesting argument on the parking ticket against conventional wisdom (the traffic court/IRS view). I think your position is tenable, if Naderesque, and would probably be given serious consideration by a higher court that wasn't simply interested in "keeping order" and maintaining the status (rules is rules!) quo.


"Two Big Macs, please. After all, one swallow does not make a spring lunch." --- Overheard at McDonald's, Los Angeles

[LTS]

QR - unless:

the deadbeat son had 3300 in income even if not claimed. my approach is to not be greedy unless you really trust less than 3300.

btw - 'crazy to normal people' - my story is similar to you.i basically live in my office, and i catch sleep in split shifts. it also works for me.

[oceanlovin'ea]

Son/Daughter dependent

I'm going to interject my delight in this eye-opening thread.

We have been supporting my daughter for the last 4 years. She was trying to get SS disability for bi-polar disorder. She got denied all the way to the judge and beyond.

She has made zero money while she was waiting because she was told she couldn't work at all. So I had to pay all her bills but she lived somewhere else.

A year and a half ago she moved to the town we live in but still in her little travel trailer. She earned about 2200 last year.

But I thought I could never claim her because she didn't live with us. I'm going to amend my returns.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Linda F

[Gene V]

Yes Linda, sometimes its right in front of you, but we can’t see it. It has been in Pub. 17 all these years. This year page 30 under Relatives who do not have to live with you.

[Black Bart]

Yes, yes,

Yes Linda, sometimes its right in front of you, but you can’t see it. It has been in Pub. 17 all these years. This year page 30 under Relatives who do not have to live with you.

it's in there all right, but I don't think they make these things all that clear on purpose. For instance, they emphasize over in the EIC section that kids have to be there six months and non-relateds have to be there 12 which gives you no reason to think dependency would be any different.

Look at the example given on the page #30 you refer to: "You and your wife began supporting your wife's father, a widower, in 2001. Your wife died in 2005 . In spite of your wife's death, your father-in-law continues to meet this test, and you can claim him as a dependent if all other tests are met, including the gross income test and support test."

That example doesn't even say that the father-in-law does not live with you. I suppose, since it's in this section, you could say it's implied that he doesn't live there, but you don't really know it for sure. If I were writing an example, that doesn't seem like a very clear one to me at all -- in fact, I think my own (if I may say so) about the 40 year old son in the trailer house across town is much more illustrative.

I think, or I guess I think, that you're implying I've probably cost lots of clients lots of money over the years and, although I don't remember many of those type cases, that that's irrelevant and the point is I should have known taxes better. I suppose so, but we do the best we can and we all have lacunae (look it up) in our basic tax knowledge. Who knows, you may even run across something you don't know one of these days. In fact, with regard to some blank spots, I'll bet I've got lots of company right here on this board, if anybody would care to admit it.


"Those who know don't speak; those who speak don't know." --- Anonymous

[Gene V]

Yes Linda, sometimes its right in front of you, but you can’t see it. It has been in Pub. 17 all these years. This year page 30 under Relatives who do not have to live with you.

Black Bart, when I say, but you can't see it, that applies to me also, I can't see things that are right in front of me

[Black Bart]

Okay. Sorry.

Black Bart, when I say, but you can't see it, that applies to me also, I can't see things that are right in front of me

I tend to read too much into things and jump too quick. It's nice that she got some good out of it though, isn't it?

[thomtax]

I tend to read too much into things and jump too quick. It's nice that she got some good out of it though, isn't it?

One of the problems with email, and postings to boards such as this, is that when you cannot see the other person's expression and actions, the words are interpreted completely different from how they were meant. I have this problem with my son sometimes. A quip that would be taken as a joke in person, becomes something that hurts when not understood in the manner that it was intended.

And, just for the record, if I ever hurt anyone's feelings when interjecting a thought, it is unintentional and I apologize in advance for it.

LT