D. Stussy wrote:

- quote -

Not a question of "worrying" about it. Those of us in the business face
these questions from our clients and that's why we have to stay abreast
of what's happening.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Harlan Lunsford" <hnslunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:I%amj.59509$vt2.10135[at]bignews8.bellsouth.net...
- quote -

....And the Senate discussion of the bill wants to include retirees. They
might not be getting zero.

However, no one gets anything until the thing gets signed into law. Until
then, why worry?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -

Following is a summary of the negotiated stimulus package released by
Congressman John Boehner's office. The 2007 tax year is the base period for
computing the rebate checks.

=================

SUMMARY -- 2008 ECONOMIC GROWTH PACKAGE
Office of Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

Release Date: JANUARY 24, 2008

OVERVIEW-REFUND CHECKS

All Americans who have earned income of at least $3,000 in 2007 will receive
at least a $300 rebate check. Those Americans with children will also
receive $300 additional for each child. In general, Americans who have an
income tax liability will receive progressively more, up to $600 for
individuals and $1,200 for couples, plus the additional amount for children.
This plan is phased out for single filers with more than $75,000 of Adjusted
Gross Income (AGI) and $150,000 for married couples filing jointly.

The rebate is strongly titled towards taxpayers, with more than 70% of its
benefits going to individuals and families that pay income taxes.

The proposal is an accelerated reduction of the 10% rate for 2008 filings,
which will reduce income taxes for millions of hardworking Americans.
Specifically, the rebate includes a one-time payment of 10% of the first
$6,000 of taxable income ($12,000 if married filing jointly) for a maximum
check of $600 ($1,200 if married filing jointly). In addition, the proposal
provides an additional amount for millions of families with kids.

The rebates will be sent to qualifying individuals and families by check,
which will be delivered as soon as possible; the amounts will NOT be part of
a taxpayer's regular income tax refund.

Under the plan, Americans will need to make no additional filing with the
IRS or otherwise apply for the checks; they will be mailed automatically.

GENERAL STRUCTURE: There are two ways Americans can receive a check: 1) If a
person pays income taxes; or 2) If a person has earned income of at least
$3,000 (i.e., the individual must have worked in 2007). Check amounts will
be the sum of two separate calculations: the Base Amount and the Children's
Bonus. Checks will be phased-out for those with AGI above $75,000 ($150,000
in the case of married couples filing jointly).

1. The Base Amount:

The base amount is whichever is greater between two options:

Option A -- Federal income tax paid in 2007, with a maximum of $ 600 for
single filers ($ 1,200 for married filing jointly).

OR

Option B -- A flat amount of $300 for single filers ($600 married for
married filing jointly), but only if the filer's earned income in 2007 was
at least $3,000.

PLUS

The Children's Bonus:

Anyone qualifying for the base amount (because they had at least $3,000 in
earned income or paid at least $1 in federal income taxes in 2007) also
receives an additional $300 per child, with no cap on the number of
children.

Revenue Cost [in billions of dollars]

Total: $103
Outlay increase: $28
Tax reduction: $75

EXAMPLES

Ex 1. John Doe had a job for part of the year, earning $9,000. He has
custody of two children. He owed no federal income taxes for 2007. Under
the proposal he would be eligible for a Base Amount of $300 for himself
(because his earned income was at least $3,000). His earned income would
also be sufficient to get a $300 Children's Bonus for each of his two kids,
for a total of $900.

Ex. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Smith both worked part-time in 2007 and have two
children. After application of available deductions and credits, they had a
federal income tax liability of $500 for 2007. Under the proposal, they
would be better off with Base Amount of $600 for a couple (for which they
qualify, because their earned income was more than $3,000). They would
therefore also have enough earned income to qualify for a Children's Bonus
of $300 for each of the five children. Thus, their total check would be $
1,200.

Ex. 3. Mr. and Mrs. Jones have five children. After taking available
credits and deductions, their 2007 taxable income was $95,000, leaving them
with a federal income tax liability of just over $16,600. Under the
proposal, they would get the full Base Amount of $ 1,200. They would also
qualify for a Children's Bonus of $1,500, bringing their total check to
$2,700.

Ex. 4. Mr. and Mrs. Senior are retired. As a result of their investment
income, the couple paid $4,000 in federal income taxes in 2007, meaning they
would get the full base amount of $1,200. They had no dependent children,
so there is no Children's Bonus.

Ex. 5. Mr. and Mrs. Ipo have one child. They were able to retire young but
still collect dividends and capital gains from a business they sold a few
years ago. The couple paid $19,000 in federal income taxes on that income
in 2007. They would therefore qualify for the Base Amount of $1,200. They
would also qualify for a Children's Bonus of $300, because they paid at
least $1 of federal income tax in 2007 (even though they had no earned
income), for a total check of $1,500.

Ex. 6. Mr. and Mrs. Withers are lawyers, with a combined income in 2007 of $
300,000. They have four children. Because their AGI is over $150,000, they
are disqualified from receiving either the Base Amount or the Children's
Bonus. They would not receive a check.

OVERVIEW-BUSINESS TAX CUTS

Bonus Depreciation: The economic growth package will provide for a 50
percent bonus deduction on new equipment in the year it is placed in
service, with certain exceptions for equipment with a "long life." This
temporary tax cut offers significant savings on new property with a
depreciation period of 20 years or less. This will give employers --
particularly small businesses -- greater incentive to invest and create jobs
for more Americans searching for work. The temporary bonus depreciation,
coupled with expensing measures enacted in May 2003, resulted in a four
percent increase in business spending in the first six months alone. The
cost is approximately $42.3B for 2008.

Section 179 Expensing: This provision allows employers, including small
businesses, to fully expense $250,000 in both new and used tangible property
in the year it is purchased up to an overall investment limit of $800,000.
This will provide a particularly strong incentive for small companies to
invest in their businesses so they can continue to provide good-paying jobs
for the American people. The cost is approximately $1B for 2008.

Increase in Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE)/Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) Conforming Loan Limit: The conforming loan limits for
both FHA and GSE (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) loans would be
increased from $362,000 to $725,000 and from $417,000 to $625,000
respectively.

==================

Condor

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

because the same child can legitimately be listed on two
different tax returns: 1. Custodial parent as a nondependent in
order to file HOH and possibly apply for the EITC & C&DCC and 2.
Noncustodial parent as the dependent.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 25, 3:53*pm, C Cheski <cche...[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

This is a good point. My guess is that is will end up like the child
tax credit -- which applies to children under 17 who are US citizens,
residents, or nationals, plus a few other conditions.

Another point that came up in my discussions was how it will be for
divorced people. Say P1 and P2 are divorced and have a child C. C
lives with P1 who has released the exemption to C2. Then who will get
the rebate? I'm guessing that it will be P1.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"C Cheski" <ccheski[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc0ef797-e4ee-4fc5-b688-f1d93b3baea0[at]f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

does 1040 distinguish between children and dependents? if not, then I would
think the give-away would not either.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

William Brenner wrote:
- quote -

Every news report I've seen refers to "dependents" in the first
reference, then changes it to "children" in subsequent references. Is
it clear to anyone whether non-child dependents are included?

Cynthia in Chicago

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0ilmj.62357$_m.56457[at]bignews4.bellsouth.net...
- quote -


True, but it is still just a proposal. Don't spend my money just yet . . .

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"William Brenner" <wbrenner[at]nospamplease.net> wrote
- quote -




Yeah, I'm reading that now....mis-reporting in the early war on getting the
scoop on the story said $300 per person - $1200 per family.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Paul Thomas wrote:
- quote -

would qualify rebatees.

According to cnn.com, here is the payout schedule: Keep in mind that
this is the House version and is subject to screwing up by the Senate.

"Sources on Capitol Hill and at the Treasury Department said the plan
would send checks of $600 to individuals and $1,200 to couples who paid
income tax and who filed jointly.

"People who did not pay federal income taxes but who had earned income
of more than $3,000 would get checks of $300 per individual or $600 per
couple.

"A Democratic aide and Republican aide said there will be an additional
amount per child, which could be in the neighborhood of $300.

"Those who earn up to $75,000 individually or up to $150,000 as a couple
will be eligible for the payments, said Republican and Democratic
sources familiar with the tentative deal."

http://tinyurl.com/2zj7ar

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"William Brenner" <wbrenner[at]nospamplease.net> wrote
- quote -


I read it's $300 per person, children too....not to exceed $1200 per family.




- quote -


Indeed, and those who file extensions will have to wait longer......

I suspect it'll be based off of the 2006 return data.




- quote -


I think they are shooting for June, but if you remember back some 7 years
ago when they did this before, it took several weeks and a couple of weeks,
up to a month and a half to mail out several hundred million checks, so I
suspect they'll be sending checks in July as well.



- quote -


Naa, it's a major task to do something that hasn't been done in 7 years.




- quote -



Most likely it'll take weeks to develop the program to compute and print
checks. Now you're into March at least.




- quote -


Or even grows.........




- quote -



What can you do with $300? For some folks, that's their kids monthly
texting bill. It was cheaper with walkie talkies or a string and two tin
cans.





--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

William Brenner wrote:
- quote -

fine mess you got us into."

"they" can't wait until 2007 returns are filed to have a foundation to
base any so called "rebates" on. They will have to use 2006 in my opinion.

Now they're talking about maybe in May getting checks out.

Married Joint client today asked about it, when will they get their
1600$. (Of course we know now it's max of 1200$). I had to tell them
that most probably they would not be getting anything atall, since they
had no tax liability in 2oo6 since income was only pension plus social
security.

Oh boy, it's going to be FUN!

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Has anyone seen or heard of just how IRS is going to determine
the income basis that will be used to establish individual
eligibility and the amount to be "rebated" based on actual income,
children, etc?

To use 2007 income, they would have to wait until April, when the bulk
of returns are filed. And then there are those who file for extensions.
2006 income? Not too accurate a basis.

There was speculation today (1/24) that it might be April, May or even
June before the rebate checks are cut. The reason given was that IRS is
"busy" now with "other things" -- like collecting taxes?. Perhaps this
is their cover for waiting until the bulk of 2007 returns are filed. In
the meantime, the economy sputters on.

Of course, all of the above depends on the Congress and administration
stopping patting themselves on the back long enough to pass a bill and
get this moving.

What a mess!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >