Tag Archive | all

IRS Form 8949: You Can ‘Copy & Paste’ Into 8949 At Least With The IRS ‘Free Fillable Forms’.

Dec2013x125

 …
..

.
 ..by Anura Guruge


Related Posts:
>> IRS Form 8949 Should Be On An Exception Basis … — Apr. 11, 2013.
>> IRS Provided ‘Free Fillable Forms’: Huge Endorsement — Mar. 20, 2013.


As ‘Tax Day’ approaches, as was to be expected, there is growing interest in IRS Form 8949 — which only came into effect as tax year 2011.

If you use Quicken (which I refuse to do, because I really don’t see why it needs to know my inside leg measurements, what statin I take for my cholesterol and the make of car I drive), I gather that Fidelity (for one) will provide downloadable 8949 data that will get automatically filled in. Well, even that will not convince me to use Quicken (though I did use it, a decade ago, when I was honing my tax preparation skills). That Fidelity does not provide us with this data in Excel (comma separated data) form is inexcusable and I did complain about it this year. I assume that there must be other financial institutes that are gracious enough to provide this data in Excel form to their clients.

So what I do is create my own Excel using the PDF (or HTML) of the tax statements available online with Fidelity.

I will copy all the columns and then do a PASTE SPECIAL (Text) into a Word document. I will then use the global replace function of Word to add tabs. Then I do a Text –> Table conversion. Then I delete the columns I don’t want. I then copy the entries of this table to a new Excel spreadsheet — again doing a PASTE SPECIAL (Text).

Then, just because I enjoy messing around with Excel, I subtotals of all the transactions to make sure Fidelity got them correct! Having the subtotal also serves as a ‘check sum’ to make sure I that I haven’t lost any transactions.

Then I fire up Free Fillable Forms (FFF) and create a new Form 8949. I can then copy across a complete row, from Excel to FFF and then paste it.

So, if you notice I haven’t typed in any of the transactional data per se. All of it is essentially copy, paste …. copy, paste.

I can do this fairly quickly. That I have two monitors which enables me to keep the Excel on the left-hand side monitor and FFF on my (main) right-hand side monitor definitely helps.

Hope this helps. Enjoy.

IRS Form 8949: Should Be On An Exception Basis, And Not Rote. Would Save Billions In Processing Costs And Untold Hours For Taxpayers.

Dec2013x125

 …
..

.
 ..by Anura Guruge


Related Post:
>> IRS Provided ‘Free Fillable Forms’: Huge Endorsement — Mar. 20, 2013.


8949I


I assume that less than 30% of folks who file actually have to include 8949s. So, I appreciate that this is not a widespread concern and that of those that do have to file 8949s, 90% use a paid tax professional who gladly undertakes the drudgery for a ‘small’ price.

I also do NOT have a problem with having to report exact and accurate ‘cost basis’ (and ‘yes’ as a ‘product‘ of the “dot.com” stock craze I still have enough capital loss carryover to last me another 70 years)! I actually prefer when ALL of the cost basis is reported to the IRS. That way I don’t have to do any thinking or go digging through statements trying to work it.

I have two issues. Lets deal with the easier one first. Financial institutions should REPORT all cost basis as they know them. So, lets not have a category saying ‘NOT reported to the IRS’. Yes, I fully understand that financial institutes cannot always do this because they are NOT aware of the cost basis — an easy example is if you transfer stock from one broker to another and then sell that transferred stock. The second broker has no record of when you bought the stock and how much you paid for it. In such cases they report: ‘basis unknown’. That is fine.

Now the crux of my suggestion. In the cases where the basis HAS BEEN reported to the IRS.

So, this is what we have.

>> The IRS has an itemized list of all the transactions with a bottom line that adds it all up.

>> You have the same list with the same bottom line.

>> You now reproduce this list in 8949 and send it to the IRS.

>> IRS checks the list that you sent with the list they got.

That is redundant and pointless.

So, sticking with the assets for which basis is reported, what 8949 should have at the top is:

A] Do you agree with the reported costs basis and final tally: YES NO.
….If NO list all exceptions.

That way folks like me, who always agree, don’t have to reproduce the whole list. The IRS does not have to compare my list with what they already have. That will save processing. That will save costs.

Think about it.

Microsoft Bing Competes With Google Doodles With Interactive Easter Egg Background.

Dec2013x125

..
.March31doodlethumb
by
Anura Guruge


A Few Related posts:
>> 
Cesar Chavez Doodle, Mar. 31 … — Mar. 31, 2013.
>> All Of Google’s Doodles & Games … — Jan. 16, 2013.
>> Link To Google’s ‘Zamboni’ Game … — Jan. 16, 2013.
>> Google’s April 1, April’ Fools Doodles — Mar. 30, 2013.

≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ Check CATEGORY ‘Google Doodle’ for other posts
—>>> (side bar)


BingEaster

Click here to access Bing’s Easter 2013 search page with this background.

Move the cursor around and find ‘pop up’ rectangles. They contain clever ‘quotes’ or jokes like that shown above.


Wow. We now have controversy about Google Doodles! Who would have thought. [See below.]

And Bing is competing. Though my ISP, TDS, has Bing as the default search if I mistype a URL, I am a dyed in the wool Googler. I just banged my name into Bing when I went to get the background. I was impressed with the results. Maybe I should try it. But, as Deanna always complains I like my routines — but, part of that is the discipline. I have used Google for so long.

I am, as you know, partial to Google Doodles — especially after they gave me the one I requested!

Bing, I guess, has a different background daily — and as with Doodles, some of it is country-specific. Yes, there is an archive (and I will confess, it is better laid out than Google’s).

I don’t think I will have the time to follow both. I am hooked on Doodles.

But …


The Controversy!

Click to access article.

Click to access article.

Google Doodles For April Fool’s Day: Can You Spot The ‘Valid’ Doodle?

Dec2013x125

..
.
by
Anura Guruge


A Few Related posts:
>> All Of Google’s Doodles & Games … — Jan. 16, 2013.
>> Link To Google’s ‘Zamboni’ Game … — Jan. 16, 2013.

≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ ≡ Check CATEGORY ‘Google Doodle’ for other posts
—>>> (side bar)


April1Doodles

Click here to get access Google’s treasure trove
of archived Google Doodles.


Google is noted for its brilliant April Fool’s Day pranks.

Last year they announced the extremely funny 8-bit Google Maps. Just Google for all their other pranks. Wikipedia even has an entry titled: “List of Google’s hoaxes and easter eggs” .

But google has been quite circumspect when it comes to Google Doodles for April 1, i.e., April Fool’s Day. Here are three from 2009, 2010 and 2012. There wasn’t one for 2011.

Are they all pranks?

No. Only one is a bona fide joke. Can you tell which one that is?

One relies on some poetic license. Can you spot that one.

The other is truly legit, though it is very clever.

Никола́й Васи́льевич Го́голь with his trademark nose. But, he wasn’t born on April 1. Neither did he die on April 1. He was a ‘March’ man: was born and died in March.

Yes, the 2010, ‘Topeka‘ renaming was a ‘joke‘, though rather tame and obvious. Topeka, Kansas, more of less forced Google’s hand by making an official announcement, covered by the media, on March 1, 2010, that they were renaming Topeka, Kansas, ‘Google’, Kansas for a month. So, Google retaliates, so to speak. But it was very obvious.

Nikolai Gogol is real! Honest. He was Russian and only those that truly have an appreciation of world literature would have heard of him. That Google found him was so cute. Bravo. But, they did take some poetic license, which to me, spoilt it. Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol (Никола́й Васи́льевич Го́голь) WAS NOT born on April 1, 1809! He was born March 31, 1809. And Google can’t claim that it was April 1 in the U.S. At best it would have been March 30 in the U.S. So that was cheating.

The ‘VLT‘, standing for ‘Very Large Telescope‘ is very real and it did indeed go public on April 1, 1999. And the names are correct too. So that one is legit, though I have issues with the graphic. The laser shown shooting out of the 4 telescopes is not a common occurrence. Yes, they do shoot a laser to determine atmospheric distortion so that computer software processing the captured images can compensate for it. This is called ‘Adaptive Optics’. Yes, it looks cool, but as an astronomy buff I worry that it creates the wrong impression and that kids, especially, might form this notion of telescopes that shoot lasers into the sky on a routine basis.

The VLT at sunset.

%d bloggers like this: