keep in mind, however, that you need to itemize rather than take the standard deduction to get this benefit. So, if you don't have a house then chances are you won't be itemizing.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If I read this correctly, you estimate that you spend 7588 in medical related expenses in 2007.Originally posted by: jpbelauskas
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: jpbelauskas
is it possible to deduct health insurance premiums? I had to pay for my family's health insurance out of my own pocket. no employer health program was available.
If you file the Schedule A, they fall under medical expenses. Note the amounts of medical expenses must exceed 7.5% of your income to have an effect.
7.5% of agi = 3,800
amount of premiums less other medical expenses, (i.e daughter had pulpotomy done = 1158.00) was $7588.00
so i would be able to deduct at least 3788 for my taxes correct?
7.5% of your AGI is 3800.
Therefore you have $7588-$3800 = $3788 that will have an impact on the Medical line of the
Schedule A.
Originally posted by: pontifex
i paid into a 401k plan last year. will i receive some kind of form for this? i haven't received one yet so I don't know how to enter it onto the form.
Originally posted by: Qacer
This is my first attempt to do my own taxes. My first question is: do the tax amounts withheld for federal income, social security, and Medicare make up the total amount withheld by the IRS?
I'm curious if I add up all three amount and use this as my basis for my tax calculations.
Thanks!
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: cpals
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: cpals
My brother-in-law and his wife live with my wife's parents for all of 2007. His wife had a 3 year old kid when they got married in April 2007 (he hasn't filed for custody or anything special like that). They also had a baby in October of last year.
Due to their income not being that great, I suggested them looking into having my wife's father claim the kids since the tax benefit would be much greater. My question is can my wife's father claim both the kids or only the one that was born while they were married?
Thanks.
Well her father's relationship doesn't chenge that with her children. So that is a moot point.
However, there is pretty clear Qualifying Child/Relative questions.
A Qualifying Child is:
your child, step child, adopted/foster child, sibling or a descendant of one of these like a grand kid or nephew/niece.
They have to live at least half the year and you support more than 50% of their care.
They have to be under 19 (24 if a full-time student), or they can be as old or even older than the taxpayer if they are totally disabled.
The tie-breaker tests side with the taxpayer with the highest ADJUSTED gross income. However; you can't say it's 50/50 and then have two people claim the dependent.
I do not think that the grandparent can claim there own children here at all unless they meet the Qualifying child test above.
If you brother-in-law and sister are income earners, it's probably going to cost them to allow your grandfather to claim the kids.
The children lived with their grandparents all of 2007. They are mainly supported by the grandparents as my brother-in-law is out of work right now and his wife was the main earner in their family. However, she only earned around 9,000 and since she put three dependants for her job (for whatever crazy reason) she is only getting around $500 back this year. That is the reason I was wondering about the grandparents claiming the kids.
I was confused by your explaination...however if the kids are not blood related to the grandparents they more than likely can't claim them.
The booklets clearly outline Qualifying Child and Qualifying Relative. If they don't qualify the mother would be probably owing money if she is only getting back $500 with them. She cannot claim them as well nor use them for tax advantages.
Originally posted by: lokiju
Alright, this has been driving me nuts here.
I've been trying to figure out why I owe about $1,800 in taxes when I claimed 0 and had the maximum withheld.
The only thing I can come up with is that I was paying taxes based off of a tax bracket that was for $50k or below and due to a unexpected bonus in '07, I made over $50k.
Does it make sense then that I was basically paying taxes on a $50k and below bracket but now that the year has ended and I made over that, Uncle Sam wants the difference that in there eyes should have been paid all year?
If that is the case, is there a way to report the bonus differently so it doesn't put me into a higher tax bracket? This is all assuming my assumption is even correct to begin with.
:|
This stuff is so confusing
Nothing will show. The contribution does not affect your taxes for 2007 - only when you are an old fogieOriginally posted by: Supermercado
I've got a very quick question about my return. Prior to doing my taxes, I contributed $4000 to a Roth IRA so it would be part of 2007. TurboTax asked if I made any contributions to an IRA and then what type it was, so I answered Roth IRA. I know that's not going to affect my return at all since it was a Roth, but when I looked at the printout to mail in, I didn't see any indication that I'd made the contribution. I may have missed it but should there be something there to denote that I made a Roth IRA contribution for 2007?
Thanks!
The grandparents could have the option of claiming the newborn on their taxes.Originally posted by: cpals
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: cpals
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: cpals
My brother-in-law and his wife live with my wife's parents for all of 2007. His wife had a 3 year old kid when they got married in April 2007 (he hasn't filed for custody or anything special like that). They also had a baby in October of last year.
Due to their income not being that great, I suggested them looking into having my wife's father claim the kids since the tax benefit would be much greater. My question is can my wife's father claim both the kids or only the one that was born while they were married?
Thanks.
Well her father's relationship doesn't change that with her children. So that is a moot point.
However, there is pretty clear Qualifying Child/Relative questions.
A Qualifying Child is:
your child, step child, adopted/foster child, sibling or a descendant of one of these like a grand kid or nephew/niece.
They have to live at least half the year and you support more than 50% of their care.
They have to be under 19 (24 if a full-time student), or they can be as old or even older than the taxpayer if they are totally disabled.
The tie-breaker tests side with the taxpayer with the highest ADJUSTED gross income. However; you can't say it's 50/50 and then have two people claim the dependent.
I do not think that the grandparent can claim there own children here at all unless they meet the Qualifying child test above.
If you brother-in-law and sister are income earners, it's probably going to cost them to allow your grandfather to claim the kids.
The children lived with their grandparents all of 2007. They are mainly supported by the grandparents as my brother-in-law is out of work right now and his wife was the main earner in their family. However, she only earned around 9,000 and since she put three dependents for her job (for whatever crazy reason) she is only getting around $500 back this year. That is the reason I was wondering about the grandparents claiming the kids.
I was confused by your explaination...however if the kids are not blood related to the grandparents they more than likely can't claim them.
The booklets clearly outline Qualifying Child and Qualifying Relative. If they don't qualify the mother would be probably owing money if she is only getting back $500 with them. She cannot claim them as well nor use them for tax advantages.
Not sure what the confusing part was, but let me try and clarify...
1. Mother and daughter moved in with current father over a year ago. Mother married father last year in 2007, but he is not legally her father.
2. They all live in grandparents house and are mostly provided for by grandparents.
3. Mother and Father had baby 11-07 and are still living with grandparents.
4. Mother made about $15k, but due to what she put in her job for dependents they only took $500 out for taxes, which she is getting back now (according to my tax program). Father did not work last year.
5. Grandparents were asking about claiming child #2 (blood related) because it may help his taxes more than the Mother since she had almost no taxes taken out.
Not sure if this is better...
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: lokiju
Alright, this has been driving me nuts here.
I've been trying to figure out why I owe about $1,800 in taxes when I claimed 0 and had the maximum withheld.
The only thing I can come up with is that I was paying taxes based off of a tax bracket that was for $50k or below and due to a unexpected bonus in '07, I made over $50k.
Does it make sense then that I was basically paying taxes on a $50k and below bracket but now that the year has ended and I made over that, Uncle Sam wants the difference that in there eyes should have been paid all year?
If that is the case, is there a way to report the bonus differently so it doesn't put me into a higher tax bracket? This is all assuming my assumption is even correct to begin with.
:|
This stuff is so confusing
Bonuses are taxes as special compensation at a 25% rate. You can't change that, it's IRS regulated.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Nothing will show. The contribution does not affect your taxes for 2007 - only when you are an old fogieOriginally posted by: Supermercado
I've got a very quick question about my return. Prior to doing my taxes, I contributed $4000 to a Roth IRA so it would be part of 2007. TurboTax asked if I made any contributions to an IRA and then what type it was, so I answered Roth IRA. I know that's not going to affect my return at all since it was a Roth, but when I looked at the printout to mail in, I didn't see any indication that I'd made the contribution. I may have missed it but should there be something there to denote that I made a Roth IRA contribution for 2007?
Thanks!
Originally posted by: lokiju
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: lokiju
Alright, this has been driving me nuts here.
I've been trying to figure out why I owe about $1,800 in taxes when I claimed 0 and had the maximum withheld.
The only thing I can come up with is that I was paying taxes based off of a tax bracket that was for $50k or below and due to a unexpected bonus in '07, I made over $50k.
Does it make sense then that I was basically paying taxes on a $50k and below bracket but now that the year has ended and I made over that, Uncle Sam wants the difference that in there eyes should have been paid all year?
If that is the case, is there a way to report the bonus differently so it doesn't put me into a higher tax bracket? This is all assuming my assumption is even correct to begin with.
:|
This stuff is so confusing
Bonuses are taxes as special compensation at a 25% rate. You can't change that, it's IRS regulated.
I understand that the rate the bonus got taxed at is set, my bigger issue is that the bonus bumped me up to (I think) a higher tax bracket.
I'm wonder if that is what has caused me to owe?
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
If I put my occupation as "Swinger", "Pimp" or "Drug Dealer" on my tax returns this year what would happen????
Originally posted by: eaj0010
I live in an apartment, but on my check it shows I have 3 allowances. On my W-4 I put single filer (1), nobody claims as dependent (1), and head of household (shouldn't have put that). I did a quick file but I haven't submitted it yet and it said I owed $900. What on earth is going on here?
You were paid $5K in 2007 by your company.Originally posted by: Ph33zy
Okay I posted this in my own thread but, maybe there are tax gurus looking at this thread more that can help me out. Thanks:
I recently accepted a job that gave a $5000 signing bonus. 1 month into the job, I realize that the position is not for me and am going to move on. I know that I have to pay back the signing bonus but I only received $2700 after tax.
UPDATE:
Okay, so its my last week.... and it seems like my company issued my bonus in 2007 since it showed up on my 2007 W2's. I now have to pay back the company the full 5000 since they submitted my earnings to the IRS already, which is fine.
I asked them if it should be reflected in my 2008 W2's and they said NO. Does this make sense???? My 2007 W2 will report that I made $5000 more. Shouldn't my W2 for 2008 reflect that I made $5000 less?
Repayments
If you had to repay an amount that you included in your income in an earlier year, you may be able to deduct the amount repaid from your income for the year in which you repaid it. Or, if the amount you repaid is more than $3,000, you may be able to take a credit against your tax for the year in which you repaid it. Generally, you can claim a deduction or credit only if the repayment qualifies as an expense or loss incurred in your trade or business or in a for-profit transaction.
Type of deduction. The type of deduction you are allowed in the year of repayment depends on the type of income you included in the earlier year. You generally deduct the repayment on the same form or schedule on which you previously reported it as income.
For example, if you reported it as self-employment income, deduct it as a business expense on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) or Schedule F (Form 1040). If you reported it as a capital gain, deduct it as a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). If you reported it as wages, unemployment compensation, or other nonbusiness income, deduct it as a miscellaneous itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: lokiju
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: lokiju
Alright, this has been driving me nuts here.
I've been trying to figure out why I owe about $1,800 in taxes when I claimed 0 and had the maximum withheld.
The only thing I can come up with is that I was paying taxes based off of a tax bracket that was for $50k or below and due to a unexpected bonus in '07, I made over $50k.
Does it make sense then that I was basically paying taxes on a $50k and below bracket but now that the year has ended and I made over that, Uncle Sam wants the difference that in there eyes should have been paid all year?
If that is the case, is there a way to report the bonus differently so it doesn't put me into a higher tax bracket? This is all assuming my assumption is even correct to begin with.
:|
This stuff is so confusing
Bonuses are taxes as special compensation at a 25% rate. You can't change that, it's IRS regulated.
I understand that the rate the bonus got taxed at is set, my bigger issue is that the bonus bumped me up to (I think) a higher tax bracket.
I'm wonder if that is what has caused me to owe?
If taxes were not withheld from the bonus check, it would make a difference.
Best thing you can do is to play what if.
Remove the bonus from the equation and see if that drops your taxes. If taxes were withheld from the check remove them from the amount of taxes withheld.
Note that when in the higher tax bracket, it is not on all income but only on income that is within the bracket.
Without the stub, you have no way of backing out the income and tax withheld from the equations.Originally posted by: lokiju
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: lokiju
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: lokiju
Alright, this has been driving me nuts here.
I've been trying to figure out why I owe about $1,800 in taxes when I claimed 0 and had the maximum withheld.
The only thing I can come up with is that I was paying taxes based off of a tax bracket that was for $50k or below and due to a unexpected bonus in '07, I made over $50k.
Does it make sense then that I was basically paying taxes on a $50k and below bracket but now that the year has ended and I made over that, Uncle Sam wants the difference that in there eyes should have been paid all year?
If that is the case, is there a way to report the bonus differently so it doesn't put me into a higher tax bracket? This is all assuming my assumption is even correct to begin with.
:|
This stuff is so confusing
Bonuses are taxes as special compensation at a 25% rate. You can't change that, it's IRS regulated.
I understand that the rate the bonus got taxed at is set, my bigger issue is that the bonus bumped me up to (I think) a higher tax bracket.
I'm wonder if that is what has caused me to owe?
If taxes were not withheld from the bonus check, it would make a difference.
Best thing you can do is to play what if.
Remove the bonus from the equation and see if that drops your taxes. If taxes were withheld from the check remove them from the amount of taxes withheld.
Note that when in the higher tax bracket, it is not on all income but only on income that is within the bracket.
The bonus was taxed and issued from my employer.
So if that is the case, lets say I run through TurboTax again but exclude the bonus amount from the earned and tax brackets and it does make it to where I don't owe, then what? How to I file then? I also don't know how the bonus taxes get split up between Federal and State, I fear I don't have the stub anymore, is there a way to determine this?
Originally posted by: boardsportsrule
New question here
I worked in winter, spring and summer of 2007 in oregon(made about 4k).
In fall 2007 i moved to California to do go to college.
I got a job in fall 2007(in cali) (made about 1k).
I want to claim "residency" in california to get instate tuition.
Thus i am confused on what tax forms to fill out.
I was a resident in oregon when i made my income there, and i was a resident in california when i made my income there.
So which state do i do an "instate tax return" and which do i do an "out of state from"?
Thanks
Andy