"D. Stussy" <att-spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

I hope the IRS comes to the same conclusion. I was just
trying to anticipate potential arguments they may try to
make.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << 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 (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

By George (apologies, George!) you're right!

I would send in explanation about the discrepancy between
the 600 and purported 2500$ and add that the 600 has been
added to basis of the property.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
recently recovered from a hard cold and totally exhausting work week.
Sun 5 Feb 2006

====
Moderator:
As expected, some people need excuses. Oh and forgive my
surgery while we are at it.

<< ================================================== ===== > << 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 (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

I agree with the application of 280A to at least part if not
all of the amount paid. However, I find that "not charging
rent" doesn't mean that rent wasn't paid.... I feel that
"as a favor" lacks relevance here.

<< ================================================== ===== > << 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 (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

aespre wrote:

- quote -

The usual problem is arguing about the FMV of what you have
won. Fortunately you do not have this problem. But you
need to read whatever contract you signed. What I expect is
that you owe no taxes and simply have an increase in the
FMV of your property which will be resolved upon the sale of
that property.

Someone else will need to explain how to deal with this on
your tax return.

<< ================================================== ===== > << 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 (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

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

Wouldn't it be better to declare the entire $2500 and then
subtract out the disputed $1900 on line-21 with an
explaination attached? That way the IRS computer matching
would find the $2500 and not trigger an automatic letter.

--
To email me, remove CLUTTER.

<< ================================================== ===== > << 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 (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

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

As I recall a similar issue came up a while ago.

Under section 280A(g), income from renting a dwelling for
less than 15 days a year is not included in taxable income,
and no deductions are allowed with respect to that renting
of the premises.

Furthermore, under section 109 improvements by a lessee to
real property are not included in lessor's taxable income.

So in this case if the OP were to be considered a lessor,
and particularly if the use of his property was for a total
of less than 15 days, he should have no taxable income
either for rent received or for improvements made to the
property.

The glitch comes in because the OP indicated that he did
this "as a favor," indicating that he did not charge any
rent. As such it could be argued that he doesn't qualify
for either section 280A or 109.

On the other hand I haven't found a single case that deals
with this issue. So in the mean time I'd claim that
whatever he received from anything that was done was exempt
income.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << 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 (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

How did they get your SSN?

--
f

<< ================================================== ===== > << 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 (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

Wouldn't the taxable amount be the increase in the value of
the property? That's typically way less than the
improvement costs (especially at the inflated rates used by
the entertainment industry).

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << 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 (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

aespre wrote:

- quote -

Darned right I'd dispute it!

The 1099 (misc?) was probably for the fair market value of
the whole job. What does the written contract say?

Now, IF there is no written contract spelling out that you
accept their figures, then by all means declare the 600$ on
your tax return, but also send a copy of the 1099-misc. with
explanation that your only intent was to let them USE your
property for their show and no mention was made that labor
was included in "the job".

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
Fri 3 Feb 2006

<< ================================================== ===== > << 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 (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

As a favor to a location scout, I agreed to let my yard be
used for an episode of a garden imporvement show in '05. It
was a fairly small project that included building a garden
trellis structure. The materials used were mulch, concrete,
12 concrete pavers, the trellis and some landscaping fill
(if I had bought these items myself I would say they used
about $600 in materials total). I just received a 1099 from
the production company for $2500! Can I dispute this 1099
or do I have any options? Can they at least be required to
provide me with copies of receipts? This was not something
I won, just an improvement show.

Thanks!

<< ================================================== ===== > << 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 (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >