"Occupation" on form 1040

#35 04-05-2005, 08:34 AM

Thomas Healy wrote:

- quote -

> The April 11 issue of Forbes has several articles on tax
> dodges, including "Leaky Shelters" that profiles Gary
> Kornman's scams. I think it's well-researched.

I must disagree. The writers at Forbes don't research
anything. I had a case written up last year in their
magazine and they got it completely wrong. If I had
followed their staff writer's (Bill Barrett's) suggestion,
I'd be in prison now. His statements about the facts of my
case are in complete contradiction with what the Tax Court
record actually shows.

You don't take advice from your bank too?

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#34 04-02-2005, 06:39 AM

TaxSrv" <n3_eu[at]comcast.net> wrote:

- quote -

> This code is of limited use to IRS on 1040s, but this data
> and associated summary return $$ data is collected and sold
> to outsiders on very expensive CDs. No t/p identifying
> return data course. It's thus also available also to gov't
> at all levels, who find it useful to make decisions which
> they think will help us and just might do that. Even the
> direct marketing industry might find it useful to better
> target geographic areas, reducing the volume of junk
> marketing we must endure...maybe? :-)

Or increasing the volume, since companies that can't afford
to target the whole country now know who to target. The
government should not be selling any data I give them with
my tax return to private companies.

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#33 04-01-2005, 09:22 AM

"MTW" wrote:

- quote -

> Or, for that matter, how many tax preparers can figure out
> which is the right code for their clients? I've been tempted
> to put down 999999 for everyone and see what happens.

This code is of limited use to IRS on 1040s, but this data
and associated summary return $$ data is collected and sold
to outsiders on very expensive CDs. No t/p identifying
return data course. It's thus also available also to gov't
at all levels, who find it useful to make decisions which
they think will help us and just might do that. Even the
direct marketing industry might find it useful to better
target geographic areas, reducing the volume of junk
marketing we must endure...maybe? :-)

Fred F.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#32 04-01-2005, 06:49 AM

The April 11 issue of Forbes has several articles on tax
dodges, including "Leaky Shelters" that profiles Gary
Kornman's scams. I think it's well-researched.

--
Tom Healy, CPA
Boulder, CO
Web: http://www.tomhealycpa.com

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#31 03-29-2005, 10:32 PM

"MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

> Or, for that matter, how many tax preparers can figure out
> which is the right code for their clients? I've been tempted
> to put down 999999 for everyone and see what happens.

"Other" is what I always look for first when confronted by a
list that shows the organization of my bedroom floor.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#30 03-27-2005, 11:01 AM

Frederick Jorden wrote:

- quote -

> How many taxpayers can figure out with is the right code for
> them?

Or, for that matter, how many tax preparers can figure out
which is the right code for their clients? I've been tempted
to put down 999999 for everyone and see what happens.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#29 03-25-2005, 05:07 AM

Gene E. Utterback, EA wrote:
- quote -

> "Harlan Lunsford" <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > Yes, Dick I sure do have a cite. Have you ever seen a W2
> > for a homemaker? Or ever seen a schedule C or C-EZ, much
> > less a schedule se for such? I thought not. Therefore,
> > it's not earned income.

(snipped

- quote -

> Harlan, your reference to a W-2 is NOT a cite. Cite being
> short for citation, i.e.. a reference to legal authority -
> like a code section or revenue ruling.

Gene, let the record show, I do know what a (real) "cite" is
by now.

- quote -

> And while we're at it - I have seen W-2s for homemakers - I
> have several single male clients who employ full-time
> homemakers to take care of the business of running their
> households. One of them even pays for her to be there as
> his hostess at parties and she frequently accompanies him on
> business trips and dinner meetings. And this is strictly a
> professional relationship, specifically there is no hanky
> panky going on that anyone I know of knows about. She has
> separate sleeping quarters in the house and they are not
> involved romantically, it is purely a business relationship.

And I was speaking of never having seen a W2 for one's
spouse of course.

C$,
HL

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#28 03-25-2005, 04:48 AM

D. Stussy wrote:
- quote -

> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> > "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> > > Jay wrote:

> > > > Does the IRS pay any attention to the "occupation" next to
> > > > the signature on form 1040?

> > > Not really. It is sometimes used for special projects
> > > (audits of an industry). I usually leave it blank,
> > > especially when there's another form that hints at what the
> > > taxpayer does (e.g. Schedule C). When I worked for the IRS,
> > > there was never any instruction to us about when it's blank.

> > So what about on Schedule C - can you leave that one blank
> > too?

> Not really. It also has that 6-digit code that indicates
> the profession - and that IS stored data.

How many taxpayers can figure out with is the right code for
them?

--
Frederick E. Jorden http://Tax-Accounting-Payroll.com
7825 Midlothian Tpk - 207 Richmond, VA 23235-5247
EMAIL knowtax[at]bigfoot.com
(804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#27 03-24-2005, 03:10 AM

- quote -

> > > Leave the space blank. "retired" or "housewife" is not an
> > > occupation.
> > > > > Also, the question is meant to be answered with reference to
> > > one's current occupation, no matter what he did or did not
> > > do last year.

> > > Moderator:
> > > I am LoL. Do you have a cite for "retired" or "housewife" not
> > > being an occupation?

> > But mother is a noble profession. Homemaker is another.

> Yes, Dick I sure do have a cite. Have you ever seen a W2
> for a homemaker? Or ever seen a schedule C or C-EZ, much
> less a schedule se for such? I thought not. Therefore,
> it's not earned income.
> Agree with Frederick of course.

> Moderator:
> So Harlan, mi amigo, when you agree with Frederick, how do
> you accept mother or homemaker as noble professionals to
> be entered as occupations.

Au contraire, mon ami. Was only agreeing with Frederick as
to the nobility of motherhood and not as a recognized
occupation.

- quote -

> Oh by the way, my brother had a client who wanted to enter
> "Spy" as his occupation. <G> I suggested he refuse to do
> that, but tell the client that "Unpaid Sex Slave" would be
> less likely to trigger an audit.

Well, I've never been the latter, however when the former,
I had a bunch of unreimbused exployee business expenses
which weren't deductible cause back then I didn't itemize
deductions. Of course we were forbidden to list that as
our occupation. But now the Cold War is over and I can now
confess.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#26 03-24-2005, 03:10 AM

- quote -

> > I have used Grandma, for one client, civil servant for
> > another, and employee for many clients.

> "employee"? That's not very creative, unless he or she is
> truly a general purpose gofer or general factotum or
> renaissance man/woman.

"Factotum"! I LOVE it, and must remember that one.

Always makes me think of Robert Merrill singing that aria
from.. Barber of SEville I think. "Largo al factotum della citta."

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#25 03-24-2005, 02:51 AM

"Harlan Lunsford" <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

> Frederick Jorden wrote:
> > Harlan Lunsford wrote:
> > > Jay wrote:

<SNIPPED
- quote -

> > > Moderator:
> > > I am LoL. Do you have a cite for "retired" or "housewife" not
> > > being an occupation?

> > But mother is a noble profession. Homemaker is another.

> Yes, Dick I sure do have a cite. Have you ever seen a W2
> for a homemaker? Or ever seen a schedule C or C-EZ, much
> less a schedule se for such? I thought not. Therefore,
> it's not earned income.
> Agree with Frederick of course.

> Moderator:
> So Harlan, mi amigo, when you agree with Frederick, how do
> you accept mother or homemaker as noble professionals to
> be entered as occupations.
> Oh by the way, my brother had a client who wanted to enter
> "Spy" as his occupation. <G> I suggested he refuse to do
> that, but tell the client that "Unpaid Sex Slave" would be
> less likely to trigger an audit.

Harlan, your reference to a W-2 is NOT a cite. Cite being
short for citation, i.e.. a reference to legal authority -
like a code section or revenue ruling.

And while we're at it - I have seen W-2s for homemakers - I
have several single male clients who employ full-time
homemakers to take care of the business of running their
households. One of them even pays for her to be there as
his hostess at parties and she frequently accompanies him on
business trips and dinner meetings. And this is strictly a
professional relationship, specifically there is no hanky
panky going on that anyone I know of knows about. She has
separate sleeping quarters in the house and they are not
involved romantically, it is purely a business relationship.

Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#24 03-24-2005, 02:32 AM

Harlan Lunsford wrote:
- quote -

> Frederick Jorden wrote:
> > Bill wrote:
> > > itsjay_97plus1_DoTheMath[at]yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > Does the IRS pay any attention to the
> > > > "occupation" next to the signature on form
> > > > 1040? TP was earlier self-employed, but had
> > > > no earned income in 2004, likely also into the
> > > > future. Is putting "retired" for "occupation"
> > > > likely to attract undue attention? An alternative
> > > > is to repeat previous years' entry.

> > > Not much attention is paid. IMO, the information is
> > > gathered mainly for statistical purposes, and probably used
> > > for endless bureaucratic bickering about future tax policy
> > > <G> .
> > > > > Many TPs use "Retired" and still have income from some
> > > enterprise. It's a state of mind, and it won't attract any
> > > attention at all.

> > I have used Grandma, for one client, civil servant for
> > another, and employee for many clients.

> On a related subject then, many and various tax forms ask for
> a "title" when the preparer signs the form. I use different ones,
> such as "chief", "czar", "head(man)", whatever comes to mind.
> Just today signing a city property tax return I used "Prince".
> Oh; need to remember to use "Sir" next time. right.

The on I like is El Jeffe!

--
Frederick E. Jorden http://Tax-Accounting-Payroll.com
7825 Midlothian Tpk - 207 Richmond, VA 23235-5247
EMAIL knowtax[at]bigfoot.com
(804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#23 03-24-2005, 01:34 AM

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

> "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> > Jay wrote:

> > > Does the IRS pay any attention to the "occupation" next to
> > > the signature on form 1040?

> > Not really. It is sometimes used for special projects
> > (audits of an industry). I usually leave it blank,
> > especially when there's another form that hints at what the
> > taxpayer does (e.g. Schedule C). When I worked for the IRS,
> > there was never any instruction to us about when it's blank.

> So what about on Schedule C - can you leave that one blank
> too?

Not really. It also has that 6-digit code that indicates
the profession - and that IS stored data.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#22 03-21-2005, 06:02 AM

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

> "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> > Jay wrote:

> > > Does the IRS pay any attention to the "occupation" next to
> > > the signature on form 1040?

> > Not really. It is sometimes used for special projects
> > (audits of an industry). I usually leave it blank,
> > especially when there's another form that hints at what the
> > taxpayer does (e.g. Schedule C). When I worked for the IRS,
> > there was never any instruction to us about when it's blank.

> So what about on Schedule C - can you leave that one blank
> too?

Leave what blank on the schedule c? There's no place for
"occupation" thereon. Only for type of business.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
Sun 20 Mar 2005

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#21 03-21-2005, 05:23 AM

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

> "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> > Jay wrote:

> > > Does the IRS pay any attention to the "occupation" next to
> > > the signature on form 1040?

> > Not really. It is sometimes used for special projects
> > (audits of an industry). I usually leave it blank,
> > especially when there's another form that hints at what the
> > taxpayer does (e.g. Schedule C). When I worked for the IRS,
> > there was never any instruction to us about when it's blank.

> So what about on Schedule C - can you leave that one blank
> too?

No it is part of the substantiation of the deductions on the
C. or F.

--
Frederick E. Jorden http://Tax-Accounting-Payroll.com
7825 Midlothian Tpk - 207 Richmond, VA 23235-5247
EMAIL knowtax[at]bigfoot.com
(804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#20 03-21-2005, 05:04 AM

Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
- quote -

> Harlan Lunsford wrote:

> > Moderator:
> > I am LoL. Do you have a cite for "retired" or "housewife" not
> > being an occupation?

> My wife puts has used "patient". No audits yet.
> And "housewife" is quite DEFINITELY an occupation.

Yes, but "Homemaker" is more p.c.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#19 03-21-2005, 05:04 AM

Frederick Jorden wrote:
- quote -

> Bill wrote:
> > itsjay_97plus1_DoTheMath[at]yahoo.com wrote:

> > > Does the IRS pay any attention to the
> > > "occupation" next to the signature on form
> > > 1040? TP was earlier self-employed, but had
> > > no earned income in 2004, likely also into the
> > > future. Is putting "retired" for "occupation"
> > > likely to attract undue attention? An alternative
> > > is to repeat previous years' entry.

> > Not much attention is paid. IMO, the information is
> > gathered mainly for statistical purposes, and probably used
> > for endless bureaucratic bickering about future tax policy
> > <G> .
> > > Many TPs use "Retired" and still have income from some
> > enterprise. It's a state of mind, and it won't attract any
> > attention at all.

> I have used Grandma, for one client, civil servant for
> another, and employee for many clients.

"employee"? That's not very creative, unless he or she is
truly a general purpose gofer or general factotum or
renaissance man/woman.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#18 03-21-2005, 04:07 AM

Frederick Jorden wrote:
- quote -

> Bill wrote:

> > itsjay_97plus1_DoTheMath[at]yahoo.com wrote:

> > > Does the IRS pay any attention to the
> > > "occupation" next to the signature on form
> > > 1040? TP was earlier self-employed, but had
> > > no earned income in 2004, likely also into the
> > > future. Is putting "retired" for "occupation"
> > > likely to attract undue attention? An alternative
> > > is to repeat previous years' entry.

> > Not much attention is paid. IMO, the information is
> > gathered mainly for statistical purposes, and probably used
> > for endless bureaucratic bickering about future tax policy
> > <G> .
> > > Many TPs use "Retired" and still have income from some
> > enterprise. It's a state of mind, and it won't attract any
> > attention at all.

> I have used Grandma, for one client, civil servant for
> another, and employee for many clients.

On a related subject then, many and various tax forms ask for
a "title" when the preparer signs the form. I use different ones,
such as "chief", "czar", "head(man)", whatever comes to mind.
Just today signing a city property tax return I used "Prince".
Oh; need to remember to use "Sir" next time. right.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
Sun 20 Mar 2005

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#17 03-21-2005, 04:07 AM

D. Stussy wrote:

- quote -

> I usually leave it blank,
> especially when there's another form that hints at what the
> taxpayer does (e.g. Schedule C). When I worked for the IRS,
> there was never any instruction to us about when it's blank.

I've been leaving it blank for the past few years and have
encountered no related problems.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

#16 03-21-2005, 04:07 AM

Frederick Jorden wrote:
- quote -

> Harlan Lunsford wrote:
> > Jay wrote:

> > > Does the IRS pay any attention to the "occupation" next to
> > > the signature on form 1040? TP was earlier self-employed,
> > > but had no earned income in 2004, likely also into the
> > > future. Is putting "retired" for "occupation" likely to
> > > attract undue attention? An alternative is to repeat
> > > previous years' entry.

> > Leave the space blank. "retired" or "housewife" is not an
> > occupation.
> > > Also, the question is meant to be answered with reference to
> > one's current occupation, no matter what he did or did not
> > do last year.

> > Moderator:
> > I am LoL. Do you have a cite for "retired" or "housewife" not
> > being an occupation?

> But mother is a noble profession. Homemaker is another.

Yes, Dick I sure do have a cite. Have you ever seen a W2
for a homemaker? Or ever seen a schedule C or C-EZ, much
less a schedule se for such? I thought not. Therefore,
it's not earned income.

Agree with Frederick of course.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

Moderator:
So Harlan, mi amigo, when you agree with Frederick, how do
you accept mother or homemaker as noble professionals to
be entered as occupations.

Oh by the way, my brother had a client who wanted to enter
"Spy" as his occupation. <G> I suggested he refuse to do
that, but tell the client that "Unpaid Sex Slave" would be
less likely to trigger an audit.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"news" and "fyi" links on the "Track My Portfolio" page tom: no longer work in my Money 2000. When I click them, I get "MSN Money-Page Not Found" and "The page you requested could not be found." But there is a...	Microsoft Money	7	10-25-2007 11:34 PM
a "freebie" from the IRS? Form 1041 - trust income Alex Goorgle: I was perusing through Form 1041 Instructions and found this interesting bit of text: Line 20—Exemption A trust whose governing instrument...	Taxes	5	08-15-2004 08:07 PM
Money 2002 transaction status flags ("E", "C", "R") have all disappeared Nick Tonkin: Hi, After many months of using Money 2002, yesterday I suddenly noticed that the column in my resgister that shows the cleared status of each...	Microsoft Money	4	02-28-2004 04:39 AM
Variant form of charitable remainder trust with non-cash "annuity benefits"? AES/newspost: Some major universities, other nonprofits, offer packaged charitable remainder trust plans (or some variation of same) to donors: send us $XXXXX...	Taxes	3	11-19-2003 11:56 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode