2015 Tax Return Case Study

I appreciate the opportunity to advise you regarding the tax treatment for your loss of $25,406 in 2015 from your dog breeding activities. I understand that you decided to start breeding purebred terriers to keep yourself busy after your divorce with your husband in January. There are two possible ways to treat the loss under rulings in the Internal Revenue Code. One option is to treat your dog breeding activity as a business and deduct the losses on Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, of your individual income tax return. The second option is to treat your dog breeding as an activity not engaged in for profit, which does not allow you to deduct the

The other option afforded to the Ouray’s is to file separately as a married couple. Filing separately can be advantages under special circumstances. However, if the couple was to file separately, there are several restrictions. First being, that if one spouse cannot demonstrate more than one-half of a child’s support is provided by them, a multiple-support agreement must be filed. Next, if one taxpayer itemizes their deductions they must both take itemized deduction and same goes if one person takes a standard deduction, the other must as well. If filing status was to be separate, neither spouse can claim the earned income credit and the credit for child and dependent care expenses. Next, no deduction is allowed for the interest paid on educations loans, and only $1,500 of excess capital losses can be claimed by each person.

KPMG was one of the biggest accounting firms in the 90’s that with a lucrative end, would serve wealthy companies using forged revenues in order to avoid taxes. The accountants that worked for the firm were expected to meet certain quotas. Consequently, instead of trying to run an honest business they were trying to maximize the sales using all kinds of dishonest marketing approaches. KPMG employees used foreign banks as well as bogus law firm statements to preserve a legitimate business running. This accounting firm manipulated financial data of clients, costing the internal revenue service over 2.5 billion in lost tax revenue

In order to deduct her moving expenses, she must meet certain conditions outlined in Reg. 1.217-2 (c). Helen meets the first two requirements (relevance to work test and distance test) without any issue. The third requirement has not yet been met yet though. This requirement is a minimum period of employment. Since she is a full-time employee, she must work full-time in this general location for at least 39 weeks during the 12 month period after the move. This does not mean she is not required to remain employed at her current place of work to meet this test. Even though she does not meet this requirement yet, she can deduct these expenses on the current years return or the year the reimbursement is paid to her by her employer. If she recognizes the expenses on this year’s return and does not end up meeting the requirement, she will have to include the deductions she took on this year’s return in next year’s gross income.

Write an APA-formatted response of no more than 200 words for each the following questions:

1. [LO 1] Compare and contrast different ways in which a taxpayer triggers a realization event by disposing of an asset.

NOTE: In addition to the in-chapter and end-of-chapter exercises which serve as short cases you will find the following short cases arranged by course title that can also be utilized as short cases that require the student to access the authoritative literature to address the issue presented in the case. Solutions to the cases below are available to instructors on the Weirich Accounting & Auditing Research 8e instructor website at www.wiley.com/college/weirich. Other excellent sources of longer and more detailed cases include the Deloitte Trueblood cases and cases provided by various other firms.

What you need to keep in mind if the non-custodial parent pays much more than the parent who the child primarily lives with. It’s possible to fill out a form that will give the other parent the right to claim their child as a dependent. If they are paying more out of their own pocket, they’ll most likely need the tax break.

The lifo recapture tax law is as follows. When a entity has inventory acquired under the lifo method, the company must have must have its remaining income provided for its last year as a c-corp. If the company had assets that were previously recognized under a c-corporation it must include those assets under the recapture tax law.

Mitsue: Dr. Shreffler has an FY 17 voucher from Oct 1, 2016,that cannot be done because it's BD2K funding which is not loaded. Presently, the authorization is now showing “Rejected” because of no funding. What is the protocol used ERTB and when the funding comes move it back to BD2K funding? Let me know your thoughts so I can move forward on this matter. Thank

I am also filing because I feel Michael 's father never has time for Michael. He 's either working or at sports, Michael 's sports is being place in front of Michael 's health and school, and what I feel is right is not being respected. Michael 's father is not there to make most of these decisions his step mother is and I don 't feel they are good decisions or in the best interest of Michael. I deal with Michael 's step mother most of the time and there 's a lot of

a.) If a taxpayer omits an amount of gross income in excess of 25 percent of the gross income reported on the return, the statue of limitation is increased to 6 years . So I will explain Andy that the IRS is not barred from accessing his income if he is audited. Also , there is no statue of limitation on cases that involve fraud. Fraud involves specific intent on the part of the taxpayer to evade a tax. Since Andy is aware that he has omitted this amount,it would be fraudulent not to report it.

Good morning Anthony. I added three additional columns to the "Washington Sales by Qtr_ with Potential Tax Liab " spreadsheet. The first two are for the B&O tax liability and Penalty using the rates provided by James. The last column is the Total potential Tax Liability excluding interest since, according to James, it is no easy way to compute that amount. I resend James' email to Sara, so she could help me answering his last two questions. She is going to confirm with Russ about these questions and send me an email once she has the answer.

NIKE, Inc.'s profit margin has remained consistent when comparing FY12 to FY14. In FY13, however, it decreased by 40 basis points, which can be explained by two things: First, in FY13 demand creation expense rose by 5% against FY12. This was "mainly driven by an increase in sports marketing expense, marketing support for key product initiatives, [...], as well as an increased level of marketing spending around global sporting events such as the European Football Championships and London Summer Olympics." Second, in FY13, "operating overhead expense increased 13%, primarily attributable to increased investments in [NIKE, Inc.'s] Direct to Consumer operations, higher personnel costs, and corporate initiatives to support the growth of [NIKE,

Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg., Justice N. L. Untwalia, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice P. S. Kailasam, Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice Y. V. Chandrachud.