Amended returns and S-Corp HI

[JG EA]

Are you amending returns? How do you get around the it has to be in the W-2? It has to be reimbursed? Perhaps you are changing the 07 W-2's?

I'm inclined to start with 08, but it doesn't seem fair since we were following the rules as they were then. Does that mean that people who weren't following the rules are now absolved, Or they didn't put the deduction on Page one but had the income in the W-2?

I'm a little confused and should I exert myself and try to change the previous years with W-2C's, 941C's, etc?

[Bees Knees]

I'm not amending returns because I never followed their stupid rule, which eventually got thrown out with the trash.

Moral of the story is go with your gut. When IRS makes up stupid rules, just do things the way you always did them and eventually IRS will come to their senses after nobody follows their stupid idea.

[Bees Knees]

Tax law riddle

If it sounds like I am a little sarcastic, its because I am.

OK, here is a riddle for you.

Partnership late filing penalty = $50 per partner per month up to 5 months.

New law signed by President on 12/20/2007 raises it to $85 per partner per month up to 12 months.

New law signed by President on 12/19/2007 raises it by $1 per partner per month.

Is the penalty now $86 per partner per month up to 12 months?

Or is it $85 per partner per month up to 12 months because the raising it by $1 was signed one day before it went from $50 to $85?

The code doesn’t say $86. It merely says it was raised by $1 to pay for some other tax break.

Congress is out of control.

[Bees Knees]

Here is the actual text of the bill signed into law on 12/20/2007

Paragraph (1) of section 6698(b) of such Code is amended by striking `$50' and inserting `$85'.

Here is the actual text of the bill signed into law on 12/19/2007

the dollar amount in effect under section 6698(b)(1) of such Code shall be increased by $1.

So does that mean on 12/18/2007 it was $50, on 12/19/2007 it was $51, and on 12/20/2007 it went to $85?

Or does it mean on 12/18/2007 it was $50, on 12/19/2007 it went to $51, and on 12/20/2007 it went to $86 because the 12/19/2007 law continues to apply after it was raised again on 12/20/2007?

Congressional intent on the 12/19/2007 law was to raise it by one dollar to pay for something. Congressional intent on the 12/20/2007 was to raise it from $50 to $85 to pay for something else. But the timing of signing of the law changes make it unclear.

Any thoughts?

[veritas]

Alice in Wonderland

If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?

[joanmcq]

What changed with S-corp health ins? Didn't it always have to be on the W-2 if paid by the corp for a >2% shareholder? Or are we talking about something different?

[JG EA]

The thing that changed is that it had to be in the name of the corporation and now it does not. I am concerned about what I should do.

I am very happy for you Bees, but apparently not as foresighted. I know you are trying to change the subject, but any advice on what an idiot should do now about amending???

[Bees Knees]

I am very happy for you Bees, but apparently not as foresighted. I know you are trying to change the subject, but any advice on what an idiot should do now about amending???

I would be honest with the client, tell them you followed the law as it was written at the time, and now the law has changed. Its not your fault. Its not the client's fault. It is our government that can't make up its mind on the rules.

Therefore, you tell the client, "I can amend the returns for a fee, or leave as is. Its up to you."

Don't ever appologize for having to charge the client for something that wasn't your fault.

[JG EA]

Thank you very much. But there was no reimbursement and not in W-2's. Is anyone trying to reverse those things?