SR VIII: Vander Got Run Over By A Reindeer!

rushfan4 wrote: birdwithteeth11 wrote: Finally! A band that can mix full-blown electronic music with metal!  Check out Dol Amman.

I searched for it and got nothing.

Dol Amman reminds me of Amon Duul. For some reason.

Edited by MovingPictures07 - November 28 2009 at 13:01

birdwithteeth11 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: birdwithteeth11 wrote: Finally! A band that can mix full-blown electronic music with metal!  Check out Dol Amman. I searched for it and got nothing.

Sorry.  Dol Ammad.  He also has a second band called Dol Theeta.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Bah, is this broad enough? "Understand the limitations on deducting partnership losses."

This deals with passive losses and at-risk losses.

NOW WE WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ROCKETTE MORTON WITH ANY OF THOSE GIRLS

MovingPictures07 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Bah, is this broad enough? "Understand the limitations on deducting partnership losses." This deals with passive losses and at-risk losses. I'm familiar with at-risk and passive limitation rules from one of the previous chapters, but it's been a while and I'm not sure how that applies to partnerships. Okay, I may want to figure that out. The book also says something about "basis limitations"?

"basis limitations" = the at-risk rules.  If you don't have enough basis to take the losses you can't take them.  If a partner contributes $1,000 to the partnership, and the partnership has a loss, in which that partner's distributive share of the loss is $1,500, the partner is limited to only taking $1,000 of loss on their tax return.  The remaining $500 is limited by the at-risk rule, and is carried forward to future years when the partner might either contribute more money to the partnership, or the partnership makes income which would then increase the partner's basis.  (Recourse loans and qualified non-recourse loans come into play as well.  Not sure if you've had to deal with those or not).

Edited by rushfan4 - November 28 2009 at 13:32

And yeah, I have to make sure to add in the qualified non-recourse loan exception so that I don't forget it.

MovingPictures07 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Bah, is this broad enough? "Understand the limitations on deducting partnership losses." This deals with passive losses and at-risk losses. I'm familiar with at-risk and passive limitation rules from one of the previous chapters, but it's been a while and I'm not sure how that applies to partnerships. Okay, I may want to figure that out. The book also says something about "basis limitations"? "basis limitations" = the at-risk rules.  If you don't have enough basis to take the losses you can take them.  If a partner contributes $1,000 to the partnership, and the partnership has a loss, in which that partner's distributive share of the loss is $1,500, the partner is limited to only taking $1,000 of loss on their tax return.  The remaining $500 is limited by the at-risk rule, and is carried forward to future years when the partner might either contribute more money to the partnership, or the partnership makes income which would then increase the partner's basis.  (Recourse loans and qualified non-recourse loans come into play as well.  Not sure if you've had to deal with those or not). Oh, okay, that's pretty simple then. This bullet point might actually end up being the easiest of this chapter, since at-risk and passive loss is relatively easy and straightforward. This test is specifically on taxation of Corporations, Partnerships, LLCs, S Corporations, and Comparative Forms of Doing Business. There is alot of information in those; that's what mainly sucks about it.

That sounds quite like my job.  A lots of information that you need to know; not to mention all of the law changes and interpretations that occur via Congress, the IRS, and the courts that you have to constantly keep on top of too.

Do you have to deal with the ordering rules for the at-risk limitations?  Dealing with ordering income items first, then distributions, then the loss and deduction items.

That's good.  There can be quite a bit of complexity there.