All Forum Posts by: Steven Hamilton II

 Thank you for the tag.  Feel free to reach out with any questions. 

 Only if it is planned to fit the requirements of the code. You have to learn and understand the tax code and the consequences of a misstep. 

Hi Brian,

Actually, the income may not need to be on a Schedule C to offset other income. If the average length of tenancy is 7 nights or less it is considered non-passive. In that situation it is reported on Schedule E it may offset other income as it is not subject to the passive activity loss limitations. 

They have just extended it as of yesterday. 

Separate withdrawal from the account, can be a check or wire etc.

Local law is what you need to review. 

Please review the tax consequences of the transfer.

 You need a formal set of books for your entity. Don't assume that being taxed as an S-corp is the best for you. You truly should be hiring a professional to work with you and guide you instead of relying on a web forum. 

A SMLLC will still qualify: here is the direct citation Reg 1.121(c)(3)(ii)

I don't have time for this back and forth and since you want to have this conversation publicly:

You really should read the whole section instead of picking and choosing:

"In the 1980s several Federal Courts of Appeals were asked to decide whether expenses paid or incurred during the preoperating phase of a profit-seeking activity were deductible or had to be capitalized. Each of the cases involved tax[128 T.C. 5]years arising before the effective date of section 195. Six Courts of Appeals held that, because section 212 and section 162 are in pari materia, preopening expenses7 for either a section 212 activity or a section 162 activity must be capitalized. See Sorrell v. Commissioner, 882 F.2d 484, 487-488 (11th Cir. 1989), revg. T.C. Memo. 1987-351; Lewis v. Commissioner, 861 F.2d 1232, 1233 (10th Cir. 1988), revg. T.C. Memo. 1986-155; Fishman v. Commissioner, 837 F.2d 309 (7th Cir. 1988), revg. T.C. Memo. 1986-127; Johnsen v. Commissioner, 794 F.2d 1157, 1162 (6th Cir. 1986), revg. 83 T.C. 103 (1984); Aboussie v. United States, 779 F.2d 424, 428 n.6 (8th Cir. 1985). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a holding of the Tax Court which found preopening expenditures of a section 212 activity could be deducted. Hoopengarner v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 538 (1983), affd. without published opinion 745 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1984).8

Observing that section 195 as originally enacted9 in the Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-605, sec. 102(a), 94 Stat. 3522, was ambiguous and caused excessive litigation, in 1984 Congress amended the statute. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, sec. 94(a), 98 Stat. 614; S. Prt. 98-169 (Vol. I), at 282-283 (1984). The Senate print accompanying the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 stated that the intent of Congress in amending the statute was to "decrease the controversy and litigation arising under present law with respect to the proper tax treatment of start-up expenditures" by requiring expenses similar to those allowed as deductions in Hoopengarner to be capitalized. S.[128 T.C. 6]Prt. 98-169 (Vol. I), supra at 283. The purpose of the 1984 amendment to section 195 was to bring sections 212 and 162 into parity when determining whether an expenditure has been incurred in a startup activity."

The 1984 amendment TO CLARIFY directs that we review 195 as it is stands and it specifically excludes real property taxes. Again you now need to look at 195(C)(1)(b). You must read the whole citation to understand the application. Prior case law had mentioned otherwise and then since the law had changed it clarified it

I am done with this conversation as I have work I need to do. 

 As of right now, I have not seen any time extension applying to 1031 exchanges. I would still recommend working on it as though it won't happen.