A.G. Kalman wrote:
- quote -

Oh, 100% conformity would be WAY too much to hope for. I
don't think it's ever happened, in my 30-year experience
<G> .

Katie

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << It may not be relied upon for the purpose of avoiding > << penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer or the > << tax preparer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Katie wrote:
- quote -

I hope you didn't miss the part of my post that said "with
exceptions"? e.g., passive activity loses and the student
loan interest deduction would still not conform.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << It may not be relied upon for the purpose of avoiding > << penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer or the > << tax preparer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

A.G. Kalman wrote:
- quote -


Good. Maybe there is hope after all.

Katie

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << It may not be relied upon for the purpose of avoiding > << penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer or the > << tax preparer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

<< General Disclaimer: > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << It cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of > << avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. > << ================================================== ===== >
Katie wrote:
- quote -

For what it's worth: AB 115 which sets the conformity date
to 1/1/05 with exceptions passed the Assembly on June 1st
and has been read twice and amended (June 20th) and now sits
with the Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee. It is
scheduled for hearing on June 29th.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved > << ------------------------------------------------->

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

How true, alas. We haven't had a date-change conformity
bill since 2002, which set the conformity date to January 1,
2001 (to avoid picking up expensive 2002 federal changes
like the 30% additional depreciation allowance). So,
California conforms to the IRC as it was in effect as of
that date, except as otherwise provided in the California
statute, for years beginning in 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Before 2002, the last date-change bill was enacted in 1998.
For years beginning in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001,
California conformed to federal law as it was in effect as
of January 1, 1998, unless specifically provided otherwise.

And the prospects don't look all that good for moving the
conformity date up this year.

Katie in San Diego

The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and
does not constitute legal or professional advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Katie" <katiej_1958[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Under California's constitution, automatically basing income
taxes on adjusted gross income as defined by anyone other
than the Cal legislature is prohibited. They usually follow
the federal changes, but not always, and sometimes it takes
a few years.

Stu

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

Katie wrote:
- quote -

As I mentioned in my initial post, the ONLY CORRECTION is on
line 16 (state wages), and this line is NOT used anywhere on
1040. So, I do not think I need to file 1040x.

Also, California form 540 has a line for state wages.
However, this information is NOT used in tax calculations.
Instead, California incomes taxes are based on Federal AGI.

So, it appears that even my state tax won't change from this
correction. What do you think?

Bhoot Nath.

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

deja_bhoot2000[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

Actually, a change in your California wages COULD have an
income tax effect. There are a few items of income that are
exempt for California and taxable for federal purposes, and
vice versa. California taxes are not based on federal AGI,
although that is the way the form is laid out. Instead,
California defines taxable income by its own statutory
rules, which reference the federal law but differ from it in
numerous respects. Schedule CA is provided to detail those
differences as additions to or subtractions from the federal
amounts.

I presume you are a California resident, since you filed
Form 540. The difference, if any, between your state wages
and federal wages, therefore, has to do with differences
between state and federal law (i.e., it's not a sourcing
issue). If the corrected W-2 California wages are the same
as the federal wages originally reported, and you did not
make a Schedule CA adjustment on your original return for
the difference, you do not need to do anything. If the
corrected W-2 California wages are more or less than the
amount reported for federal purposes, you may have
additional tax liability or a potential refund arising from
the correction.

I agree that if nothing has changed for federal purposes,
you have no need to file an amended federal return in any
case. And if the change does not affect your California tax
liability, you don't have to file an amended California
return either.

Katie in San Diego

The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and
does not constitute legal or professional advice.

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

deja_bhoot2000[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

CA income tax computations start with federal AGI and make
adjustments to conform to CA tax law. This gets you to CA
AGI. You subtract either the CA standard deduction or CA
itemized deductions to arrive at CA taxable income before CA
tax credits.

It is quite possible you are entitled to an adjustment for
wages. E.g., CA does not have the $195/month limit on the
value of parking provided by an employer. Both CA and the
Feds provide an exclusion for employer provided health
insurance. CA provides that exclusion for registered
domestic partners who are not your dependent. The Feds do
not provide that benefit.

If your employer changed your W-2 wages for only CA
reporting, you need to find out why. If the change is to
conform to CA tax law and you did not make the adjustment on
your original CA 540, you should file the 540X. The
instructions in the tax booklet for CA Schedule CA (540)
lists various adjustments to AGI. CA Pub 1001 goes into
more detail.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/04_forms/04_1001pub.pdf

There is no need to amend your 1040 if the only change
affected CA income.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

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

Nan, EA in LA wrote:

- quote -

Nan, I don't understand why the federal return needs to be amended in
this case. Nothing has changed for federal purposes, as I understand
it. Only the California return needs to be amended. What am I
missing?

I would wait for the original return to be processed before filing the
540X unless there is a large additional payment due (on which interest
will continue to run until it is paid). In that case I'd file the 540X
and pay the tax as soon as possible to stop the interest, assuming that
the refund claimed on the original return has been or will be paid (as
you suggest). Otherwise I'd wait.

Katie in San Diego

The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and does not
constitute legal or professional advice.

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

Nan, EA in LA wrote:

- quote -

Nan & other MTM professionals,

As I mentioned in my initial post, the ONLY CORRECTION is on line 16
(state wages), and this line is NOT used anywhere on 1040. So, why do I
need to follow 1040x?

Also, California form 540 has a line for state wages. However, this
information is NOT used in tax calculations. Instead, California
incomes taxes are based on Federal AGI.

So, it appears that eveny my state tax won't change from this
correction. I invite comments from someone in CA...

Bhoot Nath

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

deja_bhoot2000[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

File the 540X if you are required to make a payment. If you
are requesting a refund, the choice is yours. File the 540X
now or wait until the 540 is processed. I would file the
540X.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

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

You must amend the Federal 1040. Simple process. But call
the Franchise Tax Board and hold on until you get a person -
and explain. They may be able to tell you the situation in
the processing. But I'd do a 540X along with the 1040X and
assume that the California refund has been paid.

Nan, EA in LA

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

On April 22nd, I filed paper version of Federal and
California tax returns. Previously, I had filed timely
extension requests. The federal tax return was processed on
May 27th and I received the small refund I had claimed.

Online check with Franchise Tax Board of California shows no
record of my filing, but I think that's OK, since they need
about 8 weeks to process paper returns.

Now we have received a corrected W-2 (W-2C); the ONLY CHANGE
is in line 16 (State wages). Which is these options should I
choose?

1. File a new CA 540, since April 22nd filing has not been
processed.
2. File CA 540X.
3. Wait until previous 540 has been processed, and then
file 540X.

Also, is there anything that I need to do for Federal taxes?
Thanks.

Bhoot Nath

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