Mark Bole wrote:
- quote -

Yes, one must watch his p's and q's for sure. Just today I'm working on
an initial estimate for a client starting Sep 15th. His wages from his
S corp are so low that he'll only be deducting 22% of his health
insurance premiums due to wage limitation, even THOUGH he'll earn
another 12,000 from his second job. And since his wife, also a
corporate employee is not the owner of the health insurance, nor a
shareholder, they can't deduct the rest of health insurance on the 1040.
Sure does get invovled at times.

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 wrote:
- quote -

Yes. ;-)

Continuing on the Form 4562 instructions for Line 11 beyond where I quoted:

"S corporations. Enter the smaller of line 5 or the corporation's
total items of income and expense described in section 1366(a) from any
trade or business the corporation actively conducted (other than
credits, tax-exempt income, the section 179 expense deduction, and the
deduction for compensation paid to the corporation's
shareholder-employees)."

So, when the S-corp files its Form 4562, the entity-level Sec. 179
business income limitation kicks in, the disallowed amount is presumably
carried forward at the entity level. The amount that matches wages paid
by the S-corp to shareholders is allowed on the individual return from
the Sched. K-1.

I was thinking more about the sole proprietor -- the classic case,
someone has a wage job but is also planning to start a business as a
sole proprietor. Doing this (actively starting a business) late in the
year potentially allows a Sec. 179 deduction against regular wages for
taxpayer and spouse.

Sometimes people think the S-corp is a big advantage tax-wise, it's
really just a quasi-partnership and it ain't necessarily so.

-Mark Bole

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

Mark Bole wrote:
- quote -

conducting a trade or business as I found out once upon a time. My
husband and wife stockholder clients in an S corporation both had wages.
Hers from an unrelated activity, ie her "day" job. His $4,000 in wages
came from their equally owned S corporation. Remember that section 179
is first computed at the entity level. Thus when I chose 10,000$ for
the section 179, my software wisely and correctly limited the actual
section 179 to the $4,000 in his wages. This, then, went on the K1 and
passed through to their joint 1040.

See the difference?

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

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:

- quote -


- quote -

But the disallowed deduction ($5K in this example) can be carried over
to future years as long as the asset remains in service.

- quote -



-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 wrote:
- quote -

*Any* regular wages of you (and your spouse if MFJ) are also treated as
income from trade/business for Section 179 business income limitation
purposes.

Instructions for Line 11, Form 4562:

"Individuals. Enter the smaller of line 5 or the total taxable income
from any trade or business you actively conducted, computed without
regard to any section 179 expense deduction, the deduction for one-half
of self-employment taxes under section 164(f), or any net operating loss
deduction. Also include all wages, salaries, tips, and other
compensation you earned as an employee (from Form 1040, line 7). Do not
reduce this amount by unreimbursed employee business expenses. If you
are married filing a joint return, combine the total taxable incomes for
you and your spouse."


-Mark Bole

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

Arthur Kamlet wrote:
- quote -

Only for proprietorship or partnership of family members.

And FWIW, I too agree to dispense with that bonus depreciation unless
you need more than the section 179 in one year. The key is
to "plan ahead."

ChEAR$,
Harlan

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

In article <Ysevk.20969$XT1.9289[at]bignews5.bellsouth.net> ,
Paul Thomas, CPA <paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -


But now that the Economic Stimulus Act has reared its ugly act, we
find that Sec 168 50% bonus depreciation is once again alive and
well, and apparently is the default unless taxpayer takes action
to forego it for all property of the same class.


The last time we had bonus dpreciation, I also learned it is
a very good idea to formally elect out even when the property
does not meet the 168k requirements. Purchase of used equipment
for example does not qualify and one might think it unnecesary
to elect out of what you cannot use in the first place, but
then you start getting IRS nastygrams :^(


Oh, Joy!




====



One additional comment about Sec 179 being limited to business
profit: Wages from another job also can be offset by 179 amounts.
--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

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




Correct. You are not required to elect Section 179.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Sep 2, 8:40 am, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...[at]bellsouth.netwrote:
- quote -

One is not required to use section 179, right? Taking depreciation in
later years when profits are higher and tax rates are higher makes
sense.

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

"D.D. Palmer" <ddpalmer[at]backnet.net> wrote
- quote -


Code Section 179. It allows a current expense (accellerated depreciation)
on certain fixed assets, among them are certain vehicles.

One of the limitations of Sect 179 is business profits. So that is one
minimum hurdle to cross before thinking about Sect 179.

Another limitation is the cost of the item(s) being expensed through Sect
179. Another, spectifically related to the class of vehicle you are
referring to, is $25,000.

Basically, the first $25,000 of the vehicle cost can be taken as a Sect 179
expense. Any remaining vehicle cost is depreciated over regular rules for 5
years minimum, maybe and often most likely, it's longer than that.

Remember the business profit limitation? If his profits, taking the impact
of regular depreciation, is less than $25k, say $20k, then his Section 179
is limited to $20k.






- quote -



Section 179 expense is taken in the year (and only one year) that the
vehicle is purchased and placed in service.




If your brother has a business, he should have an accountant - preferably a
CPA or EA - to discuss this with.




--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

D.D. Palmer wrote:
- quote -


Anyway, tax depreciation allows some rather creativity in figuring just
what the optimum deductions is for current and future years. For
example for a trucker who just bought one of those expensive rigs which
cost, say $80,000, there are about 80,001 different possibilities in
figuring current year's deduction. Well, maybe not that many, but
you'd be surprised.

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

My brother, who has a business that requires use of a vehicle, is
thinking about buying a hulking SUV (Hummer/Escalade/Suburban). I seem
to recall that there are rapid write off rules for businesses buying
vehicles over 6000 lbs.

Question1: What is the rule?

Question2: If he buys it in 2008, can he depreciate just a part of it
now then depreciate the remainder (if rule 1 allows it) in 2009 if and
when tax rates skyrocket under a different administration?

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