|
Posted by Dick Adams on June 24, 2008, 1:32 am
Please log in for more thread options
> If this was a Union Hall situation, where Union members
> report to their union hall every morning to receive their
> assignment, or sometimes no asignment at all, you might
> have a point.
That is an excellent example.
If Union member receives no assignment, travel is
commuting and is not deductible.
If Union member receives an assignment, travel to
that assignment is business travel amd other travel
is commuting.
If Union member is assigned a multi-day assignment
and is not required to be at the Union Hall until
he is looking for another assignment, travel to
the assignment is business travel only on the first
day of the assignment.
A home office is NOT a Union Hall.
Dick
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 Bronstein on June 24, 2008, 9:37 am
Please log in for more thread options
rdadams@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
> If Union member receives no assignment, travel is
> commuting and is not deductible.
>
> If Union member receives an assignment, travel to
> that assignment is business travel amd other travel
> is commuting.
>
> If Union member is assigned a multi-day assignment
> and is not required to be at the Union Hall until
> he is looking for another assignment, travel to
> the assignment is business travel only on the first
> day of the assignment.
>
> A home office is NOT a Union Hall.
Good example. But I'd appreciate clarification of a nuance. In OP's
case the home office is more a piece of paper than a reality, so going
to where the real work is done is certainly commuting.
But what about the situation where the home office is the actual
primary place of business, but the person goes out on occasion to meet
clients for meetings that last just for an hour or two. It seems to me
that wouldn't be commuting.
As I off base?
Stu
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 Arthur Kamlet on June 24, 2008, 10:27 am
Please log in for more thread options >
>Good example. But I'd appreciate clarification of a nuance. In OP's
>case the home office is more a piece of paper than a reality, so going
>to where the real work is done is certainly commuting.
More than that.
OP states clearly that the exclusivity test is not met.
And states that it's impossible to meet that test and hints that
everybody does it.
No need to read any more. Case closed.
>But what about the situation where the home office is the actual
>primary place of business, but the person goes out on occasion to meet
>clients for meetings that last just for an hour or two. It seems to me
>that wouldn't be commuting.
Sure, but that's not what we have here.
I'm not recalling the name of the case of the anesthesiologist
whose work was done at hospitals, and her OIH was used for scheduling,
recording notes, and financial records. Court allowed this and
gave us the regularly and exclusively tests, to which IRS concurred.
>From a practical perspective, SE taxpayers would generally have an
easy time of meeting the OIH test since the "convenience of the
employer" -- pretty much meaning the employer requires it, and
likely has to be in writing -- although in OP's case S Corp
owners are the actual employees, so it is easier to meet the
convenience test if there's a valid business purpose.
One more technical item: SE employees must file the OIH form
while wage earning employees do not. Since OP seeks OIH in order
to claim mileage, OP would have to generate a Form 2106, which is
probably one of those red flag forms. And any OIH and mileage
claims are subject to the 2% AGI reduction as well as being
disallowed for anyone in AMT territory.
--
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. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by removeps-groups@yahoo.com on June 24, 2008, 11:44 am
Please log in for more thread options On Jun 24, 7:27 am, kam...@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
> >Good example. But I'd appreciate clarification of a nuance. In OP's
> >case the home office is more a piece of paper than a reality, so going
> >to where the real work is done is certainly commuting.
>
> More than that.
>
> OP states clearly that the exclusivity test is not met.
That just means that there is not a part of his house that is used
exclusively for business. So no portion of mortgage interest,
property tax, electricity bill is deductible. However, business
travel miles are still allowed. From 280A(f)(4) -- quoted in a
previous thread --
Nothing in this section shall be construed to disallow any
deduction allowable under section 162(a)(2) (or any deduction
which meets the tests of section 162(a)(2) but is allowable
under
another provision of this title) by reason of the taxpayer's
being away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business
(other
than the trade or business of renting dwelling units).
Section 280A calls for exclusive use. But if that is not met, it
should I think disallow the travel mileage allowed under section 162.
http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Sec._280A
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000162----000-.html
> One more technical item: SE employees must file the OIH form
> while wage earning employees do not. Since OP seeks OIH in order
> to claim mileage, OP would have to generate a Form 2106, which is
> probably one of those red flag forms. And any OIH and mileage
> claims are subject to the 2% AGI reduction as well as being
> disallowed for anyone in AMT territory.
Then would an accountable plan work? The S Corp gets the deduction,
the employee is reimbursed and does not have to pay taxes.
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 Arthur Kamlet on June 24, 2008, 12:22 pm
Please log in for more thread options >
>> One more technical item: SE employees must file the OIH form
>> while wage earning employees do not. Since OP seeks OIH in order
>> to claim mileage, OP would have to generate a Form 2106, which is
>> probably one of those red flag forms. And any OIH and mileage
>> claims are subject to the 2% AGI reduction as well as being
>> disallowed for anyone in AMT territory.
>
>Then would an accountable plan work? The S Corp gets the deduction,
>the employee is reimbursed and does not have to pay taxes.
Two thoughts come to mind --
1. An accountable plan does not turn unallowable expenses into
allowable, deductible, nontaxable reimbursements. (Exception
for M&E percentage)
2. An accountable plan reimburses for expenses having bone fide
business purposes.
--
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. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Mileage deduction when the car was needed in order to do the job | February 21, 2007, 6:28 pm |
| Another Charity Mileage Question. | December 6, 2006, 2:04 am |
| Charitable deduction question | April 7, 2008, 1:59 am |
| A Charity Deduction Question | April 14, 2006, 4:23 am |
| Lodging deduction question | September 18, 2008, 8:02 pm |
| Charitible Clothng Deduction question | February 4, 2007, 2:05 am |
| professional training deduction question | February 12, 2007, 12:23 am |
| Travel Expenses deduction question | March 4, 2007, 9:28 pm |
| special dividend given as stocks | March 6, 2007, 6:03 am |
| Filing taxes first time. One deduction question. | April 9, 2007, 2:51 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap