D. Stussy wrote:
- quote -

separate posts.

Tomorrow? Well I just don't know. Like Scarlett O'hara,

"I'll worry about that tomorrow."

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" <lunstax[at]bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LW4gl.2928$yb.1063[at]bignews4.bellsouth.net...
- quote -

After your first post, I went to their web site and looked under the "news"
category - and found no such information.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...186065,00.html
Page titled: Recovery Rebate Credit Information Center
Page Last Reviewed or Updated: January 16, 2009

If this is true, not even the IRS has it on their site 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

D. Stussy wrote:
- quote -

the form 1040 correctly. But.....
now they're saying don't fill it in if a positive figure. They will do
the math and issue a separate refund.

makes you wonder.

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

"Rick Hess" <RickHessAll_Spammers[at]BellSouth.net> wrote
- quote -

Many thanks to those who responded.
--


Rick Hess
New Orleans
To email, eliminate All_Spammers

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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" <lunstax[at]bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GdMfl.2533$S8.690[at]bignews3.bellsouth.net...
- quote -


Then what is line 71 for?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. Stussy wrote:
- quote -

attorney is a tax idiot beCAUSE you agree with me.

I'm thrilled, D!
(grin

I think.

hmmm.. maybe.

Oh whattheheck? it's happy hour.
It's been a rather taxing day.

Finding out that although client is entitled to the added 600$ Recovery
rebate credit, IRS has decreed now NOT to put it on the 1040. GAAaAAAAHHH!

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

"Rick Hess" <RickHessAll_Spammers[at]BellSouth.net> wrote in message
news:7kmfl.2008$yb.1422[at]bignews4.bellsouth.net...
- quote -


Future tax issues and other contingencies should ALWAYS be included in a
divorce agreement or decree.

I agree with Harlan - meaning that your attorney is a tax idiot.

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

Rick Hess wrote:
- quote -

would simply place half of the amount on the 1040 page one line for
state tax refund. In my experience, IRS never has and IMO never will
take you to task for the other 50%.
and that's a fact.

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

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:glip96$v4g$1[at]snarked.org...
- quote -

There is no specific mention of it. No one thought of it since it was such
an unusual circumstance. I didn't receive the 1099-G until 1/15/09.

I called my attorney after checking the decree; he suggests that I report
100% and try to get my ex to reimburse 50% of the additional tax liability.

--


Rick Hess
New Orleans
To email, eliminate All_Spammers

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

"Rick Hess" <RickHessAll_Spammers[at]BellSouth.net> wrote in message
news:6K9cl.4702$Jn4.2977[at]bignews7.bellsouth.net...
- quote -

....And what did your divorce decree say about this?

(If it was silent, then you should sue your lawyers for malpractice!)

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

Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA wrote:
[...]
- quote -

My only quibble is that the allocation should be shown on Line 10. For
example, in a community property state such as California, if spouses
file separately, they are expected to maintain the nature of each type
of community income by documenting the split on *each* line of the 1040
(wages, interest, etc) -- you should *not* combine all the adjustments
on line 21.


- quote -

It is not unusual for the taxable state tax refund reported on Line 10
to not match the amount on the 1099-G, often with only a worksheet in
the taxpayer's records to back it up. So that issue alone should not be
a reason to "flag an audit".

-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" <kamlet[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:gkrbgl$rcs$2[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -

Since the 1099-G has both our names and SSNs on it, why would the IRS try to
get it from only me instead of from both of us?

Here's a little more info that may or may not make any difference in your
answer: We had a prenup that declaired us separate in property.
I'm a Real Estate Professional who had enough investment property losses
and depreciation (properties in my name only) that our taxable income was
zero. Had it not been for those losses, my ex definately wouldn't have
received 100% of her W-2 withholdings.

--


Rick Hess
New Orleans
To email, eliminate All_Spammers

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

"Rick Hess" <RickHessAll_Spammers[at]BellSouth.net> wrote in message
news:6K9cl.4702$Jn4.2977[at]bignews7.bellsouth.net...
- quote -

On your return you should pick up the entire refund as income on Form 1040,
Line 10.

Then on Line 21 back out the portion that belongs to your ex and include a
brief description, her name and SSN should be sufficient.

This way you've picked up ALL that was reported to you so you avoid the "not
reporting" issue AND you back off the part that belongs to her and identify
her so they can trace it to her return - the rest is on her.

Good luck,
Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA

P.S. - While I believe this info is good, it is worth every penny you paid
for it!

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

Except, Art, I think Loosana is one of those communistic states. Might
that make a difference?

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 <6K9cl.4702$Jn4.2977[at]bignews7.bellsouth.net> ,
Rick Hess <RickHessAll_Spammers[at]BellSouth.net> wrote:
- quote -


The rule is that you have taxable income from this refund only
to the extent that you had a tax benefit from it.


If you are convinced you received only half the benefit and she
received the other half, you can claim half and convince her to
claim the other half. If you cannot convince her to claim the other half,
you will have a fight on your hands. The IRS wants its share of that
income and if you can't agree, there's no reason why the IRS would
not to try to get it all from you.
--


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

I filed my state (LA) tax return for TY 2006 in December 2007. In 2006 I
was married and filed a joint return. I divorced in March 2007. The state
paid the refund in 2008, and that went into a joint account (see my other
post). Now, I received a 1099-G for TY 2008 that was paid in response to
the 2006 return. About half of the amount on the 1099-G represents
withholdings from my ex-wife's job; the rest is a refundable credit
attributable to my occupation. The amount is significant. The amount is
also easy to figure out since our joint taxable income that year was zero.
I feel that each of us should report our respective amounts on our
individual returns. Who reports what? And how do I document this on my tax
return so I don't flag an audit? The 1099-G has both our names and SSNs on
it. The LA Dept. of Revenue says they mailed each of us the same 1099-G.

--


Rick Hess
New Orleans
To email, eliminate All_Spammers

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