"Alan" <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4x6k.8844$jI5.5854[at]flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
- quote -


Thanks-I think thats what I was looking for

(will print those rev-procs out, put them under my pillow tonight & see what
sinks in)



___________________________________
<<< Benjamin Yazersky, CPA [NJ & NY] > > -----> real address on hobokeni or hobokenx <-----

"This written advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot
be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be
imposed on the taxpayer."

(The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations
governing tax practice.)

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Gil Faver wrote:
- quote -

with an overstated cost basis because there was no or too little
depreciation taken w/o any willful intent, then the normal
statute of limitations for assessment applies: 3 years from
filing or 6 years if there is a 25% understatement of gross income.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 -


I would assume most people who screw up their depreciation will also, upon
sale, show their basis as that calculated using their erroneous depreciation
over the years. In this situation, how many years must pass before the sale
year tax return is not subject to IRS scrutiny? Assuming no fraud, will the
IRS be precluded from looking at the sale year return in future years when
it is not possible to amend the sale year return?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Rich Carreiro wrote:
- quote -

an open year. In other words, if you disposed of the property in
2006 and reported the sale in 2006, the year of change for
implementing this procedure is 2006, and you would amend 2006 and
attach the 3115 to that amended return. If you disposed of the
property in a closed year, say 2004 for example, then this
procedure is not available.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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" <removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com> writes:

- quote -

No amended returns were involved. A single form 3115 was filed with
the current-year return, covering the previous seven returns (the
current-year return was, obviously, done correctly . The 3115
resulted in a one-time extra depreciation expense of $10,000+ which
went on the current-year return.

Basically, the 3115 preparer re-computed what the depreciation would
have been over the seven years if it had been done right, compared
that to what was actually taken (what was actually taken was over
$10,000 too low), claimed the difference as a current-year
depreciation expense, and then filled out 3115 (with attached
paperwork) explaining what he had done and explaining/justifying his
position that the messed up depreciation constituted an accounting
method and was therefore eligible for this treatment (as opposed to
being mere error).

--
Rich Carreiro rlc-news[at]rlcarr.com

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Jun 19, 8:17 pm, Rich Carreiro <rlc-n...[at]rlcarr.com> wrote:

- quote -

So are you saying you can then file amended returns 7 years back, or
that you can just forgot about the depreciation that was allowed but
you didn't take?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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" <removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com> writes:

- quote -

The "changing accounting method" thing is not as coarse as "accrual"
or "cash basis". As defined by the IRS, an "accounting method" is
rather more detailed and subtle than simply "are you cash basis"
or "are you accrual".

Changing your accounting method can fix the problem because you
are taking the position that your failure to take depreciation
was an accounting system (albeit an invalid one), not merely an
error.

A relative took advantage of this provision nigh on 10 years ago. The
tax pro who did the work (Charles Markham, who used to hang out right
here in MTM when dinosaurs roamed the earth took the position that
just completely not taking depreciation was an error and not an
accounting method (remember, this was 1998, so this was before the RRs
previously mentioned in this thread). "Luckily" for my relative, the
tax "pro" who had done her returns much more creatively yet
self-consistently screwed up the depreciation (though still taking way
too little) than simply not taking it, and Markham argued in the
paperwork that that established an accounting method, enabling him to
file a 3115 to change my relative to a correct accounting method, and
thereby taking seven years worth of mostly missed depreciation
(totalling more than $10,000). We never heard a peep out of the IRS,
FWIW.

--
Rich Carreiro rlc-news[at]rlcarr.com

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Jun 19, 11:31 am, joetaxpayer <joetaxpa...[at]nospam.com> wrote:
- quote -

Why does changing your accounting method fix the problem? Is it that
under the accrual method of accounting, you cannot take depreciation
(so that when you dispose of the property you don't have to add back
depreciation taxed at 25%)?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

joetaxpayer wrote:
- quote -

Tax Law 101:

There is a hierarchy when it comes to citing tax authority.
Statutory, administrative & judicial sources provide primary
authority that makes up "Tax Law."

Statutory sources include the US Constitution, tax laws and tax
treaties. Tax law is embodied in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
This is actually Title 26 of the US Code.

Administrative sources include Treasury Department regulations
(official interpretation of the IRC), IRS Revenue Rulings
(application of the IRC & Regs to a factual situation), IRS
Revenue Procedures (IRS practices & procedures for administering
tax law). Once you get past Revenue Procedures, there are a slew
of other pronouncements that are of a benefit. They typically
deal with a narrow focus and are limited to the specifics of the
case and provide useful information to taxpayers and professionals.

Judicial sources are all the rulings of the federal courts
(district courts, federal claims court, tax court, Circuit Court
of Appeals and SCOTUS).

Only primary authority may be cited as proof of "substantial
authority" in support of a taxpayer's position. I haven't looked
in a long time but all the administrative source items that are
published in the IRB (Internal Revenue Bulletin) plus
Congressional intent are primary authority for citation. The IRB
includes the items above plus various memorandums, letters,
notices, announcements, and action on decisions. The statutory
and judicial decisions complete the citation landscape.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Alan wrote:

- quote -

Well, this seems to be huge. Not huge, like when the person who started
reading got to sec 401(k) and realized this meant, well, we can have
401(k) accounts, but huge for those it impacts.
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-03_IRB/ar11.html
is a link right to the IRS site, which is the source of the bulletin
your guy references. Are bulletins like this considered 'law', or is it
similar to letter rulings that are not universally applicable?

I never claim to know everything, nor can I read everything, but you'd
think this would have gotten more press.
Joe

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Benjamin Yazersky CPA wrote:
- quote -

below for an explanation:
http://www.hoven.com/articles/pdf/al...rallowable.pdf

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"joetaxpayer" <joetaxpayer[at]nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ru-dnbOdsP_uCcTVnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

depreciation is NOT required. Treating depreciation as having been taken IS
required.

========================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
- point taken.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

ed wrote:

- quote -

So long as the first return you need to amend is less than 3 years old.
So you can amend 2007, 2006 and 2005 (which was due in Apr, 2006). I'd
not second guess Harlan as I'm not familiar with 3115.

Joe

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Jun 18, 8:22*pm, Harlan Lunsford <hnslunsf...[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

Well, Harlan, and Joe, at least it can be done even if we didn't know
where to look.

ed

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

ed wrote:
- quote -


- quote -

And it has something to do with form 3115 and claiming past depreciation
on an amended return.

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jun 18, 4:53*pm, "Benjamin Yazersky CPA" <bya...[at]lycos.com> wrote:
- quote -

probably saw it on boards somewhere. Seems to me it was something
buried in info about a change in accounting methods. Try googling
some key-words.

ed

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Benjamin Yazersky CPA wrote:
- quote -

Depreciation on renal property is not "allowed", it's "required".

I recommend you file amended returns for the prior years.
Joe

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

taxpayer (new client) sold multi family residence-
lived in one apt & rented out the other 2 apts-
depreciation was NOT claimed for prior year(s) on sch e

Is there any relief from the allowed or allowable?
I do recall that the IRS had issued something some years ago on this topic.
But I just am not finding it.





___________________________________
<<< Benjamin Yazersky, CPA [NJ & NY] > > -----> real address on hobokeni or hobokenx <-----

"This written advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot
be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be
imposed on the taxpayer."

(The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations
governing tax practice.)

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >