| | |||
| |||
| "Mike20878" <mrosen[at]gmail.com> wrote: - quote - > I have a partnership that meets the new requirement to file
Wow, your partners' capital accounts match their basis? I> schedule M-3 this year. We are running into a problem > determining how we will track tax basis going forward if we > are forced to convert partner capital to book basis to > reconcile to the M-3. It's my understanding that schedule > M-2 line 3 should equal the audited book income, whereas in > the past we used a tax basis balance sheet and book income > (simply taxable income less nondeductibles). Is it > permissible to continue to do this for the M-2 and reconcile > the difference to schedule L with a statement? The > instructions for the M-2 say that a partnership "may, but is > not required to, use the rules in Regulations section > 1.704-1(b) (2)(iv) to determine the partners'' capital > accounts... If the beginning and ending capital accounts > reported under these rules differ from the amounts reported > on Schedule L, attach a statement reconciling any > differences." Does anyone have a summary of this > regulation? I looked it up but I don't completely follow > what it says. > Put another way, do we have to report the audited balance > sheet or can we continue to use a tax basis balance sheet > and still reconcile audited income on the M-3? Is it > permissible for M-2 line 3 net income to differ from M-3, > Part I, Line 11? The reconciliation statement of schedule L > partners' capital to M-2 should explain the difference. don't have any partnerships where that is the case. I track the tax basis separately. The same way you do for clients' who own partnership interest where you don't prepare the partnership's return. -- Drew Edmundson, CPA Cary, NC << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
|
#-1
| |||
| |||
| I have a partnership that meets the new requirement to file schedule M-3 this year. We are running into a problem determining how we will track tax basis going forward if we are forced to convert partner capital to book basis to reconcile to the M-3. It's my understanding that schedule M-2 line 3 should equal the audited book income, whereas in the past we used a tax basis balance sheet and book income (simply taxable income less nondeductibles). Is it permissible to continue to do this for the M-2 and reconcile the difference to schedule L with a statement? The instructions for the M-2 say that a partnership "may, but is not required to, use the rules in Regulations section 1.704-1(b) (2)(iv) to determine the partners'' capital accounts... If the beginning and ending capital accounts reported under these rules differ from the amounts reported on Schedule L, attach a statement reconciling any differences." Does anyone have a summary of this regulation? I looked it up but I don't completely follow what it says. Put another way, do we have to report the audited balance sheet or can we continue to use a tax basis balance sheet and still reconcile audited income on the M-3? Is it permissible for M-2 line 3 net income to differ from M-3, Part I, Line 11? The reconciliation statement of schedule L partners' capital to M-2 should explain the difference. Is anyone encountering this and/or using RIA GoSystem Tax RS? Thanks. << ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== > |
| Tags |
| 1065, schedule |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | Last Post | |
| EFile vs. Really long Schedule D or Attached Schedule Jo Firey: OK I'll admit I haven't been paying attention. (I did try to google to get the answer) What is the current consensus of a return that has so... | Taxes | 5 | 04-12-2004 09:35 AM | |
| 1065/Generic schedule question John E. Jones: I am trying to fill out a 1065 plus the K-1 schedules this year. I understand them OK, and they seems fairly straight forward. However,... | Taxes | 1 | 01-25-2004 05:23 AM | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |