malpractise ins. for new graduate

Taxes General Forum - Tax professionals meeting place and answers to queries. (Moderated) 

Yahoo!   Google   Windows Live   del.icio.us   digg   Netscape

Subject Author Date malpractise ins. for new graduate jake 08-24-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate removeps-groups@yahoo.com 08-25-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate Stuart A. Bronstein 08-25-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate Dick Adams 08-26-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate removeps-groups@yahoo.com 08-27-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate Stuart A. Bronstein 08-27-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate Dan Lanciani 08-27-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate jake 08-30-2009   Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate Steve Pope 08-31-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate Stuart A. Bronstein 08-31-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate Y 08-26-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate jake 08-30-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate Y 08-31-2009  Re: malpractise ins. for new graduate Stuart A. Bronstein 08-31-2009
Posted by Stuart A. Bronstein on August 27, 2009, 7:56 pm Please log in for more thread options > >> The state boards are not an educational expense but a >> qualifying exam. Do accountants who take the CPA exam in a >> state that requires it to be called a CPA, get to deduct it? > > The course you take to study in order to pass the state board > exam may itself may have quizzes within it, but at the end there > is one big quiz. And that quiz is the board exam. So if you > need to pass this exam before you can enter the field, then it > is not deductible. That's my reasoning. I'm happy to be proved > wrong! The regulation, §1.162-5(b)(2) and (3), only talk about education expenses, not the expenses of a qualifying exam. It would be silly if you could not deduct these expenses if you studied for the exam, but you could if you didn't need to study for it. On the other hand the reasoning behind the rule is that you can't deduct something as a business expense if you aren't actually in business. From that standpoint it appears you may be right. On the other hand if OP's son can work temp jobs, perhaps under the supervision of other physicians, without having passed the exam, he may qualify. > But think of this strange scenario: Perhaps you can practice in > another country where they don't require these board exams. So > now you've already entered the field and are a practicing > doctor, though you can only practice in another country. Then > you return to the US and take a course and a board exam. It's > certainly looks like continuing education now because you are > already in the field. Yup, that's the argument. > Even tax preparers in California have to take a 60 hour exam and > pay an application fee of $25. I suppose the $25 fee is > deductible because there is nothing educational about it. Again it's not about whether it's educational. It's about whether or not you are actively in business when the expense is made. -- Stu http://downtoearthlawyer.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. >> << ------------------------------------------------------- >> Posted by Dan Lanciani on August 27, 2009, 10:21 pm Please log in for more thread options spamtrap@lexregia.com (Stuart A. Bronstein) writes: | On the other hand the reasoning behind the rule is that you can't | deduct something as a business expense if you aren't actually in | business. I wonder why these types of expenses are particularly disadvantaged. Most other pre-business startup costs can be amortized over 60 months, right? [Or with recent changes even deducted immediately up to $5000 but with some downside if there is much left over.]                                 Dan Lanciani                                 ddl@danlan.*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. >> << ------------------------------------------------------- >> Posted by jake on August 30, 2009, 8:29 pm Please log in for more thread options > Yes. However, if he is an employee than the deduction is subject to > the 2% rule, which means that only the amount above 2% of your AGI is > deductible. In addition, the deduction is not allowed under AMT, and > if he makes as much as a doctor he might be in AMT. On the other > hand, if he is paid as a contractor then the deduction is allowed in > full, and the deduction is allowed under AMT as well. it appears likely it would be paid as a contractor, so forming his own LLC might also be a wise course ahead of time. one problem we still don't understand is the situation where he would work some *other* field work, just to pay bills and to be able to pay for the MP insurance. suppose for example, he does take the offered MP policy for 1 million and works as a shoe shiner for 1 month while waiting for medical field job(s). is he able to deduct the MP expense which all potential interviewers demand, prior to making a job offer, from the shoe shine income? that is what I meant by "..is it if he does not find job this year but works temp jobs just to pay his bills?.." -- << ------------------------------------------------------- >> << 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. >> << ------------------------------------------------------- >> Posted by Steve Pope on August 31, 2009, 9:06 am Please log in for more thread options > it appears likely it would be paid as a contractor, so forming his > own LLC might also be a wise course ahead of time. Wise, but not necessarily possible; in California, licensed professionals cannot operate as LLC's. Steve -- << ------------------------------------------------------- >> << 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. >> << ------------------------------------------------------- >> Posted by Stuart A. Bronstein on August 31, 2009, 10:34 am Please log in for more thread options spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote: > >> it appears likely it would be paid as a contractor, so forming >> his own LLC might also be a wise course ahead of time. > > Wise, but not necessarily possible; in California, licensed > professionals cannot operate as LLC's. Specified professionals in CA are required to LLP's (limited liability partnerships) instead - presumably that means there must be at least two partners. Instead the professional can create a C-corporation. The costs and tax effects will normallly be similar if not the same. -- Stu http://downtoearthlawyer.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. >> << ------------------------------------------------------- >> Similar Threads Posted deduct conference expenses for graduate student March 21, 2007, 1:27 pm