HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Monday, 11 Jan 1993 10:58:56 PST
From: <SHERE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: misc.taxes,misc.invest
Subject: Re: tax on tax refund

The 1992 1040EZ form has no provision for listing a state tax refund.
Any comments on this?  Does one simply forget about one's state refund
if using the 1040EZ?
From: carl@Cayman.COM (Carl Heinzl)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Placed in Service?
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:48:05 GMT
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: cep@taligent.com's message of 5 Jan 93 19:17:45 GMT


>precise definition of these.  The IRS usually takes a strict view that
>until you generate income, you aren't operating.  The Tax Court has
>been a bit more lenient, stating that as soon as you are ABLE to produce
>income, you're in business.

Hmmm, how would a self-funded start up company work then?  I can't
believe that you can't declare any deductions until you get income.
There are a lot of companies that may take several years to realize
income from research being done now.

-
--
From: rdyreng@oodis01.hill.af.mil (Russell I. Dyreng;OO-ALC/LILEP)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Need advice to lower taxes
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 12:07:05 -0700
Organization: Fedtax-L<==>Misc.Taxes Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

In your message of  7 Jan 1993 at 1028 MST, you write:
> In article <dl.nec.com>, dillhoff@asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
> |>
> |> I have a friend who makes over 100K/year and is looking for ways to
> |> lower his tax liability. He is already maxed out in 401k. His house
> |> is paid for so he only has real estate tax deductions. He is in his
> |> 50's so he doesn't want something that is risky. Are there non-taxable
> |> bonds of some sort where both the investment and the earnings are
> |> not taxed? Please send advice.
>
> What do other folks here think about single premium variable life insurance?
> Donaghue (in one of his books I'm reading) suggests SPVL as an alternative
> to long-term bonds, municipal or not, because of the tax-free-ness of them
> and the reduced sensitivity to interest rates.  But, he says these are
> really only a good idea if you are willing to put 10K or more in as a lump
> sum.  This would not reduce tax liability immediately but would shift a block
> of earnings into a tax-free investment.
>
> I'm not real clear on this, since I've always felt that
> insurance != investment, but he sounded pretty convincing.
>
> Randy
>
SPVL is a great deal!!!! (If you're a commissioned salesman and just
sold a big policy).  Once you start mixing investments and insurance
into a single package like that you normally end up paying some pretty
steep sales commissions, either direct or indirect.

Has anyone suggested a self-directed annuity?  The money put into the
annuity grows tax-deferred, although the amount invested is not tax
deductible, the way that it would be in an IRA.  I believe that there
is virtually no limit to the amount that you can invest into a
self-directed annuity.

Russ
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: kmill@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Kent Milligan)
Subject: Uniform Deduction???
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 15:47:16 GMT
Reply-To: kmill@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester Mn

My wife is a manager at a restaurant where she is required to wear a white shirt and dress
pants and I was wondering if this "uniform" is deductible.  I know that it's not a formal
uniform like a nurse is required to wear, but it seems like required dress should qualify as a
uniform.  Any ideas?  Thanks in advance.


-- 
Kenton Milligan
IBM Rochester, Database Management
kmill@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
GO VIKES!!
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: rjungcla@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: Re: 1986 Grad Student Tax Laws
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:31:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.174452.2015@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> em@cvs.rochester.edu (Ethan Montag) writes:
>To former graduate students or those interested:
>
>In 1986, the tax laws changed so that income made by Graduate students
>fulfilling required duties (research/teaching) became taxable.  However,
>the law was grandfathered.  If you were accepted to grad school prior to
>the cut-off date, you could still make your income exempt.  The
>problem is that if you were guaranteed money from your school for
>the first four years of study, what is the status of the money earned after
>the fourth year?
>
>My school advised making only the 1st 4 years exempt.  My accountant 
>reviewed the laws and decided that the subsequent years were also
>exempt so we filed an amendment on 1990 and 1991 to get the taxes we 
>paid back.  
>
>We got the 1990 money back.  But the reviewers of 1991 amendment dissallowed the
>claim and are now going to try and reverse the 1990 judgement and make
>us return the money we already got back.  
>
>Now I have to decide whether it's worth appealling the new ruling by the
>auditor.  This would cost me $250+ paying my accountant for his time.
>Is there anyone out there who has any experience in this type of case?
>Did you win or lose?  I need to decide if it is worth gambling the additional
>money to keep what I got back already and get the money from 1991.
>
>
>Please post or e-mail me.  Of course, if there is sufficient interest, I'll
>post summaries.  

   The wording of law is "If you received a scholarship or fellowship
   that was granted AFTER August 16, 1986 part or all of it may be
   taxable even if you didn't receive a W-2 form."

   If you can produce any form of documentation (ie. dated letter
   granting the fellowship or stripend) date ON or BEFORE August 16,
   1986 guaranteeing the fellowship/stripend for N years from the
   date of documentation then the amount is tax exempt for those N years.
   In absence of any substianting documentation of granting date & terms
   before this date, you probably out of luck.

   For amounts awarded after August 16, 1986, the amount awarded above
   tutition plus course-related expenses are taxable IF you were a
   degree candiate.   If you were not degree candiate, the full amount
   is taxable.

R. Michael Jungclas                    UUCP:      att!ihlpb!rjungcla 
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL.       Internet:  rjungcla@ihlpb.att.com

Xref: sparky misc.taxes:4046 misc.invest:16091
From: jxs18@po.CWRU.Edu (Jerry Sy)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes,misc.invest
Subject: tax on tax refund
Date: 11 Jan 1993 03:57:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: jxs18@po.CWRU.Edu (Jerry Sy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


when I receive a tax refund, it is going to be taxable the following
year.  my question is, if I opt not to receive the refund and carry
it over to next year, would I still be taxed for that ? would I be
better off if I do that ? assuming that I receive $600 in federal and
state tax refunds ?

please email response if possible.

thanks
jerry

Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini)
Subject: Placed in Service?
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 18:08:04 GMT

Hi,

I bought Consumers Reports Tax guide and found it to be very
informative.  I do have a couple of questions though.

1.  When is a business "really" doing business?
    First Income?
    First Advertising?
    First Purchase of related equipment or supplies?
    Payment of DBA or Declaration of Business Tax (business license)?

2.  Does this imply that all purchases of equipment, furniture,
    supplies before the above date are startup costs?

3.  Can you have startup costs that continue until the end of the
    year and then actually do business in the following year?
    ie:  Purchases until Dec. 31 1992, start business Jan 1, 1993.

4.  How does the IRS determine whether or not a piece of equipment
    is used in a business?
   
5.  Can a non-employee, spouse, operate the equipment in accordance
    to your business?

6.  Can I claim expenses of equipment that must be used by two people
    (ie: Company owner and a non-employee) such as a cellular phone
    or other 2-way communication devices even if the other person is
    a non-employee?
    example:  I am on the road and my girlfriend is monitoring my 
    business phone.  I get a message so she calls me on my cellular phone.
    May I claim the cellular phone as a valid piece of equipment, as
    well as other related costs of operation?

I realize this is a job for a tax adviser I just want to go into it
with some knowledge before talking to them.

Please email any responses to   ohumukin@spectra.com
Thanks!

Kawika
From: joseph@stein.u.washington.edu (Joseph Chan)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: 1993 tax rate for short term and long term capital gain?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:20:02 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu


If my tax rate for 1993 is 28%.  What is the  1993 tax rate for
short term capital gain?  What is the 1993 tax rate for long
term capital gain?

For 1992 tax, the short term and long term tax rate are the same.

For 1993 tax, there is change on the tax treatment for short term
and long term rate. I do not know the detail.

Thank you for any information.

Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Uniform Deduction???
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:03:06 GMT

In article <315.724.uupcb@ehbbs.gwinnett.com> leigh.melton@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Leigh Melton)  writes:
>
>KM>My wife is a manager at a restaurant where she is required to wear a white s
>KM> and dress pants and I was wondering if this "uniform" is deductible.
>
>If she is *required* to wear it and it is "not suitable for everyday
>wear" (according to Pub. 17 - great bathroom reading) then you can
>deduct the cost of the uniform under "Unreimbursed Employee Business
>Expenses" on your Schedule A.

I did read Pub 17.  It specifically excludes white hat and shirt
required to be worn, since that wasn't a distinctive uniform.
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Uniform Deduction???
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:01:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan05.154716.24617@rchland.ibm.com> kmill@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>My wife is a manager at a restaurant where she is required to wear a white shirt and dress
>pants and I was wondering if this "uniform" is deductible.  I know that it's not a formal
>uniform like a nurse is required to wear, but it seems like required dress should qualify as a
>uniform.  Any ideas?  Thanks in advance.

It probably isn't.  The definition of a "Uniform" that the IRS usually
uses is that it is "not suitable for street wear."  Basically, if you
could wear it to the audit and not look weird, it's not a uniform.
Just because you personally wouldn't normally wear it doesn't
automatically qualify it, sadly (I'd LOVE to deduct my suit as a
uniform).
--
-- Christophe

"Bad analogy!  No biscuit!"
From: newwave@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: 2560
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:54:47 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 


  As for the question that I had posted on the net concerning intereset
on student loans being tax-deductible, the unanimous decision was a flat
no.  You could however pay it off with a mortgage and claim the interest 
of it as tax-deductible.  Once again thanks to all on responding.

P.S:  Work for the govt.(fed., state, or local level) now?  Did you take a out
a student loan prior to 1989?   Call your creditor and ask them about
how you can absolve some of your loan amount?  I did not investigate
any further since I did not qualify.  Those who qualify might want to
check it out.

Cheers...
K. Desai
Xref: sparky misc.taxes:4082 misc.invest:16139
From: smith@navajo.rc.arizona.edu (dennis smith)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes,misc.invest
Subject: Re: tax on tax refund
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:50:06 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

In article <11JAN199313330799@envmsa.eas.asu.edu> pheanis@envmsa.eas.asu.edu (David C. Pheanis) writes:
>
>     You  aren't  quite  right  when  you say that states don't tax Federal
>income tax refunds.  In Arizona a person can deduct his Federal withholding
>one year and then must treat a refund as income the next year to compensate
>for the fact that the amount of the refund  was part of the previous year's
>deduction.
>
>   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
>   |   David C. Pheanis               Computer Science & Engineering  |
>   |   pheanis@envmsa.eas.asu.edu     Arizona State University        |
>   |   (602) 965-7389                 Tempe, Arizona 85287-5406       |
>   +------------------------------------------------------------------+

Not any more. For 1991 and 1992 the state deductions in Arizona are
exactly a copy of Federal deductions (sch. A). In such you donot duduct
federal taxes on sch. A and therefore for state tax.
Dennis
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: pdaunno@Ingres.COM (Paul Daunno, Premium Support)
Subject: Re: Mortgage application fee declined
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:45:41 GMT

In article <7575@bigbird.hri.com.hri.com>, obrien@bigbird.hri.com                      writes...
>I applied for a mortgage and was declined. A few months
>later I applied for a mortgage at a different company
>and go the loan.
> 
>I was wondering if I could deduct the declined fee as
>a loss.
The same thing happened to me.  I would also appreciate
getting an answer on this.
From: meltsner@crd.ge.com (Kenneth J. Meltsner)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: tax on tax refund
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:45:26 GMT
Reply-To: meltsner@crd.ge.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE Research and Development Center



In article <93011.105856SHERE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
SHERE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:

|>The 1992 1040EZ form has no provision for listing a state tax refund.
|>Any comments on this?  Does one simply forget about one's state refund
|>if using the 1040EZ?

State tax refunds are not income -- it's money you already paid taxes
on.  You only declare state tax refunds to the extent that they
decreased your taxes in the previous year, which is the only tricky part:

  $200 in itemized deductions over the standard deduction, and $300
  state tax refund = $200 to be declared as a state tax refund.

You can only deduct state taxes if you itemize, which you can't do if
you use the 1040 EZ.  And you deduct the amount withheld, not the
amount paid, which is why you have to declare the amount of state tax
refunded to you the *next* year.  If you switch from a longer form and
itemization to the short form and the standard deduction, you might
have to fill out one last long form so the refund can be properly
noted.

Curiously enough, I don't know whether you can deduct additional state
tax paid (under-withheld) the next year.  Have to check this one.

Not a tax preparer or other knowledgable person. YMMV.

Ken
===============================================================================
Ken Meltsner                        | meltsner@crd.ge.com (518) 387-6391
GE Research and Development Center  | Fax:  (518) 387-6474
P.O. Box 8, Room KWD270		    | Nothing I say should be attributed
Schenectady, NY 12301               | to my employer, and probably vice-versa
"It's probable, just not very likely." -- Fire Maidens From Outer Space.
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: is itemizing always b
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:00:21 GMT

In article <313.724.uupcb@ehbbs.gwinnett.com> leigh.melton@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Leigh Melton)  writes:
>RO>>Is it true that itemizing deductions is always better (meaning less taxes
>RO>>to pay) than just taking the fixed deductions (say from 1040EZ) ?
>
>RO>No.
>RO>Compute taxes both ways and see which is less.
>
>... but do not forget that your chances of being audited go up when you
>itemize.  So, if you do decide to itemize, make sure you can back up
>your claims if you get a nice letter beginning... "Dear Taxpayer:"

There are certainly  some people who avoid itemizing just to reduce
their chances of being audited.  But that costs money.

Most audits are pretty simple.  Many audits just request that you
send proof of your deductions by mail.  I wouldn't be surprised if
most "Dear Taxpayer" letters are concerned with unreported income
and not with itemized deductions, anyway.

My advice is: if you will save money by itemizing, then itemize and
don't worry about the possibility of being audited.

-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
From: em@cvs.rochester.edu (Ethan Montag)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: 1986 Grad Student Tax Laws
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:44:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center for Visual Science, U. of Rochester

To former graduate students or those interested:

In 1986, the tax laws changed so that income made by Graduate students
fulfilling required duties (research/teaching) became taxable.  However,
the law was grandfathered.  If you were accepted to grad school prior to
the cut-off date, you could still make your income exempt.  The
problem is that if you were guaranteed money from your school for
the first four years of study, what is the status of the money earned after
the fourth year?

My school advised making only the 1st 4 years exempt.  My accountant 
reviewed the laws and decided that the subsequent years were also
exempt so we filed an amendment on 1990 and 1991 to get the taxes we 
paid back.  

We got the 1990 money back.  But the reviewers of 1991 amendment dissallowed the
claim and are now going to try and reverse the 1990 judgement and make
us return the money we already got back.  

Now I have to decide whether it's worth appealling the new ruling by the
auditor.  This would cost me $250+ paying my accountant for his time.
Is there anyone out there who has any experience in this type of case?
Did you win or lose?  I need to decide if it is worth gambling the additional
money to keep what I got back already and get the money from 1991.


Please post or e-mail me.  Of course, if there is sufficient interest, I'll
post summaries.  


 ____              ___                             ___     ___    ___   ___
|\___\_   _____   |\__\                           |\___\_  \__\  /\__\_|\__\
| |  |_\ |\_____\_| |  | Ethan D. Montag          | |  |_\  \  \/ /  /\_\|  |
| |     || |     |_\|  | Center for Visual Science| |     |  \  \/  /| |    |
| |     || | ___       | University of Rochester  | |     |   \    / | |    |
| |     | \|_|| |      | 274 Meliora Hall         | |     |    \  /  | |    |
| |     | __  | |      | Rochester, NY  14627     | |     ||\   \//\ | |    |
| |     ||\_\_| |      |                          | |     || |\  / /|| |    |
| |     || | |_\|      | e-mail:                  | |     || | \/ / || |    |
| |     || |     ___   |  em@cvs.rochester.edu    | |     || |  \/  || |    |
| |    _| \|_____|| |  | Phone: (716)275-8443     | |    _| \|_    _| \|_   |
 \|___|            \|__| FAX: (716)271-3043        \|___|     \|__|     \|__|
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Federal property taxes?
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:21:02 GMT
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, SRO@arlan.byu.edu (Steve Olsen) says:

>> A recent CNN "factoid" said that the U.S. Government
>> owns 60% of the land in Wyoming.
>
>The U. S. also owns most of the land in Nevada and Utah.

Can you estimate:
	1.  The total market value of the U.S.-owned land
	    in Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah?
	2.  The total revenue produced by the same lands?
	3.  The revenue that could be produced were the
	    lands to be privatized?
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
From: klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Which tax prep book to use?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 21:53:33 GMT
Organization: DEC Western Software Laboratory
Distribution: world
Reply-To: klee@wsl.dec.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: alhambra.pa.dec.com

|> I am trying to decide which tax prep book is best to use.  There
|> seems to be some that are put out by Cusumer Reports, Money, H&R Block
|> among others and I was wondering which one to choose.  Are there specific
|> things I should be looking for when I buy one?

Pub. 17 from the IRS is free (send in the form in your 1040 instruction
book) and pretty good.  The published books may give you more practical
detail and examples on common tax situations (deductions, real estate
transactions, captial gains, etc.).

-- 
Ken Lee
DEC Western Software Laboratory, Palo Alto, Calif.
Internet: klee@wsl.dec.com
uucp: uunet!decwrl!klee
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: eric@mirador.com (Eric Black)
Subject: Amend return even if no $$ change?
Organization: Mirador Computing Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:22:34 GMT

I just discovered that on my 1991 return I inadvertently left blank
the Section B of Form 4562 (Depreciation and Amortization) which is
mileage and related information for use of vehicles, and is required
if you deduct expenses for vehicles.  I deducted some mileage on 2106
for my wife's employee business expenses, and other mileage on the
Schedule C for my own business (outside consulting, at that time I
was still drawing full-time salary).

The question is, should I file an amended return just to provide this
information?  It won't change any dollar amount anywhere, it would
just be to reduce the likelihood of an audit.  But since the total
amount of auto expenses on my return was a relatively small amount,
(although it was 30% of the self-employment income, also a small amount),
and is approximately the same amount as on the preceding two years'
returns, is it worth it?

Would I be drawing suspicion to myself and increasing the chance of
an audit, or would I be showing myself to be an honest taxpayer who
is eager to fill in all the paperwork required?  Or would the IRS
expect the payback (i.e. increased tax) from an audit to be small enough
(in my case, it would be zero, since it's all legitimate and documented)
that they wouldn't waste their time?

What would you folks do in a similar situation?  (not specifically
vehicle use, but the more general case of discovering that some
information was left off of the return which was actually mailed in,
although the numbers were correct and as intended)

-Eric

-- 
Eric Black	"Garbage in, Gospel out"
Mirador Computing Systems, P. O. Box 308, La Honda, CA   94020  USA
  Email: eric@Mirador.COM    Voice: +1 415 747 0101   FAX:  +1 415 747 0101
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Social Security for non-citizens
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:07:41 GMT

In article <C0p618.B1M@news.cso.uiuc.edu> acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng) writes:
>
>Hm... Last I heard, all our honorable Congress Reps and President did not
>pay a single dime of Federal Tax.  They are exempted from it.  I guess
>you are still right, they don't participate in this society.

Like to know where you get your information.