Eitc-support

[gman]

Wanted to double check.

Support is not an issue when claiming EITC. As long as the two(father & son) are
lived together....??

[RLymanC]

RLymanC

As long as the son is otherwise qualified, support is not an issue.

[jainen]

50% of his own support

Except that the son can not provide more than 50% of his own support.

[Safire]

Unless of course the son was a qualifying child of his next door neighbor and his grandmother is not dead. If his cousins live in the same state, you have to take that into account as well. If his favorite color is blue, you got a winner. Otherwise no EITC.











Sorry, I couldn't help myself, everytime they try to clear up the rules, it just gets fuzzier.

[RLymanC]

Jainen-EIC

Are you sure about 1/2 of his own support.

Child does not have to be a dependent to qualify. Under 19 or over 19 and going to school. Income does not figure into the EIC qualification.

[jainen]

I am sure

>>Are you sure about 1/2 of his own support<<

Yes, I am sure about it. I am sure that it is wrong.

I'm also sure, Safire, that if your kid is a Qualifying Child to the guy next door, the tax return is the least of your problems.

[Safire]

True

"if your kid is a Qualifying Child to the guy next door, the tax return is the least of your problems"


good one

[RLymanC]

Eic

There is no restrictions of claiming the earned income credit for a child no matter how much money that child earns.

He meets the relationship test and lives in the home and is under 19 you get the EIC.

Please direct me to the rule that say's no EIC because the child earns money.

[jainen]

I said I was wrong

>>Please direct me to the rule that say's no EIC because the child earns money<<

I said I was wrong. Was I too sarcastic? Do you want some kind of humble apology? That's not my style.

[RLymanC]

I said.....where

Sorry, I said I was wrong!!!!

Where, I missed that part??? Please accept my humble apology
As for the sarcastic part,,,,yep it sounds like it.
and far be it from me to try to humble anyone,,,,that’s not my style.

I have read many of your threads,,,,at least you are consistant.

[jainen]

I said I was wrong

I said I was wrong where I said I was sure. Anyway, I'm sure I was wrong. I'm sorry. EIC uses the Qualifying Child definition without regard to the support test. You could look at as QC's plus others make you eligible for this benefit. Same with dependents--you can take an exemption for any QC, plus additional people.

[Koss]

Qualifying Child of Neighbor?

I'm also sure, Safire, that if your kid is a Qualifying Child to the guy next door, the tax return is the least of your problems.

Jainen, this had me laughing my *** off. You've injected some much needed humor into this discussion.

I've been doing taxes for about 17 years. I don't do a lot of partnerships or S corps, or Section 1031 exchanges or exempt organizations. I do individual returns. Over the years, I've done hundreds of returns for unmarried couples. They're not going to go away.

I knew the rules cold, and I played by the rules. I dealt with clients who just didn't get it when the rules changed in 2003, and you could no longer claim EIC for your girlfriend's child simply by asserting that you "cared for the child as your own." (That was the definition of a "foster child" for up until 2003.)

I watched carefully when they changed the tiebreaker rules to reflect the reality: it was unenforceable. Let people choose, as long as they can agree.

So it didn't surprise me that the law changed again. I expected to pick up the Pub. 17, figure out the new rules, explain it to my clients, and help them make decisions. That's what I've been doing for the last 17 years.

What blew me away was the fact that the Pub. 17 somehow didn't square up with the internal training material at my firm. After reading both sets of documents about eight times, and talking with other people, I finally decided that I wasn't crazy, and that something was seriously f****d up here.

I was forced to consider the possibility that either the IRS was simply not explaining things accurately in their instructions and pubs, or the researchers at my firm were getting it wrong. And if this had had something to do with an excise tax or a SEP-IRA in which the beneficiary was a trust, it wouldn't have surprised me. But the idea that the IRS or my firm could have difficulty interpereting or explaining something as basic as the rules for children and dependency was, to say the least, unsettling.

For the first time in a long time, I sat down to read the text of the Internal Revenue Code. And that's when I knew that some of these questions were simply not going to be resolved this year. I'm working on a "final paper" on UDC, and I think Jainen and I actually agree on almost everything.

The fact is that they have not simplified the new rules. They have made the new rules so complicated that many taxpayers who have only wage income will not be able to figure this out, and if they try, they will get it wrong.

Folks... we're going to make more money over the next few years. The demand for our services is going to increase.

For the record: I stand by my claim that the new law is ambiguous, and that there is more than one way to interpret the new text of IRC 152(c) with respect to the dependent exemption. I also believe the new law does not explicitly express the "no division of benefits" idea that the IRS has communicated in their pubs.

Burton M. Koss
koss@usakoss.net

https://www.usakoss.net

[Bees Knees]

But the idea that the IRS or my firm could have difficulty interpereting or explaining something as basic as the rules for children and dependency was, to say the least, unsettling.

This kind of stuff has been going on for years. Congress has turned the income tax code into rocket science.

Look for IRS to issue a new 975 page publication in three volumns called "Understanding the New Simplified Uniform Definition of a Qualifying Child."

[Donanita]

Confused

And the more I read and study the charts the more confused I get.Dependent,HOH,CTC, and EIC used to be sooooo simple.