Stimulus 1040A

[Koss]

Special Zip Code

No, I didn't see that... until I took the time to read the instructions in something called Tax Package 1040A-3, which is a traditional booklet containing a Form 1040A, but with special instructions for those who otherwise not required to file.

The special zip code confirms my theory that stimulus returns will be routed to a special area of the IRS processing centers.

I still say that anyone who files, or has already filed, a standard tax form, including Form 1040, with an entry on the line for social security benefits, will get the check if they are eligible for it.

What really blew me away in the 1040A-3 package is this:

The instructions confirm that someone with an ITIN is not eligible. But what about someone who has an SSN that is married to someone who has an ITIN?

The instructions state that if they file MFJ, they won't qualify for anything at all. The spouse who has a valid SSN can file and get the $300 payment. And it explicitly instructs the person to file Form 1040 using the filing status single.

Here's the link to the special tax package:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/k1040a3.pdf

Normally, they would only have the choice of MFJ, MFS, or HoH, based on the individual facts and circumstances. This guidance appears to be only for those who are not otherwise required to file, and this would not be applicable to anyone married to someone with an ITIN who actually has taxable income.

My best guess at the reason behind this strange twist:

Remember that filing the return, at least in theory, is not what gets you the payment. It merely establishes that you are eligible for the payment. So in a way, it's almost as if it's not really a tax return by the traditional definition.

I'll be there's a procedural issue, too. If the person plays by traditional rules and files MFS... well, then they have to put the spouse's name and ITIN on the return. And the mere presence of the ITIN will probably disqualify the entire return. [LOL]

But what about someone with an SSN, married to someone with an ITIN, who has real tax liability, and who files a joint return? Shouldn't the spouse with the SSN qualify for at least the $300?

Maybe they'll have to pick it up as a credit on the 2008 return, assuming they once again have tax liability. But that still doesn't address the question of whether the MFJ status, with a spouse with an ITIN, will somehow disqualify the person. Based on the text of the law, I don't think it does...

[Black Bart]

Ha-ha.

50% of a week's offering each visit - that alone would qualify you as a Baptist, based on the way some people do their giving.

BTW, I don't use the word "tithe". 10% makes some church members feel guilty, and if that were the standard I know lots of others who'd have to reduce their giving to get it down to 10%. Then there would be no place for the majority of people to hold their weddings & funerals when they want to do "something religious".

To me it really isn't about percentages. It's all about making a much more important decision - of the 100% I've been blessed with, how much am I comfortable keeping for myself?

Actually I am a Baptist (sort of); how'd you guess (I know a few people who do use that type of math)? If I was a PC type I'd have to start hollerin' religious discrimination (or whatever it's supposed to be), but there's so much of that sort of carryin' on nowadays that it just gets soooo tedious (and phony).

Say John, I've got a couple of Schedule A clients who refuse to deduct the money formerly known as tithes because they believe it to be an unprincipled act. I used to argue with them, pointing out they'd have more untaxed money for the passing plate, but they were unmoved. Whaddaya think; is that holier-than-thou or what?

[JohnH]

Render unto Ceasar

I picked on the Bapsits because I am one too. Can't be accused of anything unseemly that way, and besides I know what I'm talking about.

As for those who don't want to deduct, I had a situation like that years ago. The client didn't want to let the "right hand know what the left was doing." He didn't like the idea of getting a tax benefit from his giving and he didn't want to be tempted to be prideful about his giving. I had to hand it to him for being principled.

I happened to mention that he could always give the tax savings to his church, and that finally seemed to work for him. A few days later he came in with his giving record and we calculated the savings generated by the deduction. Every year from that point until he died, I'd run his return with and without the contribution deduction, tell him the extra tax savings, and the next year that amount would show up on his giving record over and above his routine giving.

If there were more people like him, there would never be a need to make any mention of budgets, contributions, or anything of the sort in a responsibly-managed church.

[Black Bart]

I know just what you mean.

As for those who don't want to deduct, I had a...client...didn't like the idea of getting a tax benefit from his giving...didn't want to be tempted to be prideful...I had to hand it to him for being principled.

We have to watch out for that kind of thing 'cause I was once a prideful, unprincipled type myself back in my teenage heydey.

Pop bought a brand-new Ford convertible and I cruised around town grinnin' like a baby. While a quick downpour would've drowned me (via upraised nose), I still would not have put the top up. Anyway, that dragged painfully on until he became annoyed with my insufferable, trendier-than-thou persona and pointedly reprimanded me with...umm...sump'n like this..."Hey you! Yeah, you -- hotshot! You're just driving that car -- you didn't build it."