|
#4
07-11-2005, 03:16 AM
| |||
| |||
 Re: Uniform Definition of A Qualifying Child for Dependent Exemptions - quote - > Moderator:
With todays permissive society, I guess we can look forward> Harlan, The primary job qualification to be an auditor is > proof your parents were not married. And you think a TIN > makes a person legitimate? to an endless supply of auditors. -- -Ernie- "There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will." Have you done your backup today? << ================================================== ===== > << 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. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#3
07-08-2005, 04:56 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Uniform Definition of A Qualifying Child for Dependent Exemptions Harlan Lunsford wrote: - quote - > Ah, there it is: have a TIN, thus "be legitimate."
Whew, then I could never be an auditor.> Moderator: > Harlan, The primary job qualification to be an auditor is > proof your parents were not married. And you think a TIN > makes a person legitimate? The TIN may not make the person legitimate, but it does make the exemption legal. ChEAr$, Harlan << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#2
07-07-2005, 01:14 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Uniform Definition of A Qualifying Child for Dependent Exemptions A.G. Kalman wrote: - quote - > Harlan Lunsford wrote:
Ah, there it is: have a TIN, thus "be legitimate."> > A.G. Kalman wrote: > > > Am I only the one who has noticed that what used to be 6 > > > rules for claiming a dependent is now either 6 or 7 > > > depending upon whether one is dealing with a qualifying > > > relative or a qualifying child? > > > > > (This is a hidden test question... Hoorahs to those who can > > > find the 7 tests!) > > Hmmm.. uh.. . well..... > > > maybe the child has to be legimate? > Qualifying child (QC) rule has the 1. age requirement, 2. > relationship requirement, 3. residence requirement and 4. > not be self-supporting requirement. In addition, the QC > must still meet the 5. citizen/resident test and the 6. > joint return test. Finally, the QC must have a 7. TIN. ChEAr$, Harlan Moderator: Harlan, The primary job qualification to be an auditor is proof your parents were not married. And you think a TIN makes a person legitimate? << ================================================== ===== > << 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. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#1
07-06-2005, 04:19 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Uniform Definition of A Qualifying Child for Dependent Exemptions Harlan Lunsford wrote: - quote - > A.G. Kalman wrote:
Qualifying child (QC) rule has the 1. age requirement, 2.> > Am I only the one who has noticed that what used to be 6 > > rules for claiming a dependent is now either 6 or 7 > > depending upon whether one is dealing with a qualifying > > relative or a qualifying child? > > > (This is a hidden test question... Hoorahs to those who can > > find the 7 tests!) > Hmmm.. uh.. . well..... > maybe the child has to be legimate? relationship requirement, 3. residence requirement and 4. not be self-supporting requirement. In addition, the QC must still meet the 5. citizen/resident test and the 6. joint return test. Finally, the QC must have a 7. TIN. -- Alan http://taxtopics.net << ================================================== ===== > << 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. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
07-03-2005, 04:08 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Uniform Definition of A Qualifying Child for Dependent Exemptions A.G. Kalman wrote: - quote - > Am I only the one who has noticed that what used to be 6
Hmmm.. uh.. . well.....> rules for claiming a dependent is now either 6 or 7 > depending upon whether one is dealing with a qualifying > relative or a qualifying child? > (This is a hidden test question... Hoorahs to those who can > find the 7 tests!) maybe the child has to be legimate? (grin) ChEAr$, Harlan << ================================================== ===== > << 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. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#-1
07-01-2005, 03:54 AM
| |||
| |||
| Uniform Definition of A Qualifying Child for Dependent Exemptions Am I only the one who has noticed that what used to be 6 rules for claiming a dependent is now either 6 or 7 depending upon whether one is dealing with a qualifying relative or a qualifying child? (This is a hidden test question... Hoorahs to those who can find the 7 tests!) -- 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. > << ================================================== ===== > |
| Tags |
| child, definition, dependent, exemptions, qualifying, uniform |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | Last Post | |
| change in definition of a "qualifying child" Brew1: I'm looking at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=133298,00.html Originally, I understood the new guidelines to be meaningless, as you... | Taxes | 4 | 06-14-2005 04:24 AM | |
| casualty loss, qualifying fermat: Hello experts We had extensive mold damage in 2003, but did not file a claim because our HO policy explicitly exlcudes coverage for mold damage.... | Taxes | 9 | 04-11-2005 05:35 PM | |
| Dependent College student child 8-Ball: I have an 18 year old, dependent daughter attending college. I have two questions with that regard: 1. We received a 1098-T from the University... | Taxes | 9 | 03-09-2005 09:58 PM | |
| FSA for childcare - qualifying event for change? Susie ChaCha: My daughter attended childcare 1. Due to a medical condition, she needs to change to a different daycare (environmental smoke issue). This daycare... | Taxes | 2 | 04-02-2004 10:40 PM | |
| Deduct education for non-dependent child? Lawn Care Pro: Can I deduct educational expenses for my non-dependent child? I'm paying education expenses for my son, age 20, a full-time student. He is not my... | Taxes | 5 | 08-09-2003 02:04 AM | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
