state of Illinois "corrects" my tax return

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BoomerD
While every state is different, I've never seen one that allows you to deduct moving expenses OUT of the state. SOME will let you take a deduction for moving INTO the state, but even that's iffy.

I googled and found that Illinois allows you to deduct moving expenses for moving out of state as long as the expenses were paid while you still lived in Illinois. http://www.revenue.state.il.us...l/IL-1040-NR-Instr.pdf (page 8)

He has the receipts showing that he moved in July and August, so I guess he just needs to provide proof that he lived in Illinois after he paid the movers.

OK, I looked at that page earlier but only went to the brief description of line 25 which says:

Line 25: Moving expenses
Write the amount of expenses you paid to take a new job in Illinois.


Had I gone all the way to the actual description of line 25, I'd have seen this:

Line 25: Moving expenses
Write the amount of expenses that you paid while you were an
Illinois resident or that you paid for moving to take a job located in
Illinois. If you moved to take a job located outside of Illinois, you
must provide receipts showing the expenses were paid while you
were an Illinois resident.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BoomerD
While every state is different, I've never seen one that allows you to deduct moving expenses OUT of the state. SOME will let you take a deduction for moving INTO the state, but even that's iffy.

I googled and found that Illinois allows you to deduct moving expenses for moving out of state as long as the expenses were paid while you still lived in Illinois. http://www.revenue.state.il.us...l/IL-1040-NR-Instr.pdf (page 8)

He has the receipts showing that he moved in July and August, so I guess he just needs to provide proof that he lived in Illinois after he paid the movers.

-yeah, I have my name on a Chicago lease valid until September 30, 2008
-receipt of payment to movers on August 11, 2008
-Movers were local Chicago-area business, as well.

this is kind of what I'm going with.

Also, all my items were moved to a storage facility....so should I be technically considered homeless at that time?

I got my CA driver's license a few weeks after moving into a residence in Berkeley, so would be after I paid the movers, and ~1 month after I arrived in CA.


EDIT: I was sub-letting my apartment in Chicago for those final 3 months. wasn't paying rent, but still legally responsible for that unit in case anything happened to subletter. I had to go through a few management companies and the subletter who has since renewed that lease, to get the older lease. The current company bought that building from the previous company back in April 2008, so it's been a struggle just to get the proper lease for evidence.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If you have a rent receipt for Chicago covering Aug and Sept, then a copy of such along witht he moving receipts and a copy of what Boomer & others found should cover you.

Most people pack and go - therefore they fail the test.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
If you have a rent receipt for Chicago covering Aug and Sept, then a copy of such along witht he moving receipts and a copy of what Boomer & others found should cover you.

Most people pack and go - therefore they fail the test.

ya, that's what I was going with. I read over that IL-specific stuff when filing, and knew that I fit squarely within the requirements; or that I had the necessary documents to prove such. I'll remember to print out the actual code and mail that too.

Though I don't have rent receipt, I do have legally-binding responsibility for rent in Chicago for that time. I'm not sure how two weeks on the road, essentially, suddenly updates my status to "homeless," but I suppose I'll see what IL has to say about that.

another annoyance is that the letter from IL was dated April 9, I received it 2 weeks after, and I'm certain they consider April 9th day 1 in my 30-day protest window. Ridiculous, considering it took 2 weeks of wrangling with Chicago management companies to get a copy of the proper lease (I had this stuff when I moved into CA initially, but had to move about 2 months ago and so tossed out a lot of that Chicago stuff in the process)--that really delayed me.

But I do have the envelope with postmark to give a better idea of when I received their notice, so they'll be getting that as well.


and yeah, letter will be edited sans snarkiness.

 

[mugs]

From the OP and your last two posts, it sounds like you didn't actually live in Illinois when you paid the movers, you just think you can get away with claiming you did because you had a lease. Good luck with that.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mugs
From the OP and your last two posts, it sounds like you didn't actually live in Illinois when you paid the movers, you just think you can get away with claiming you did because you had a lease. Good luck with that.

well, we'll see. I am under the impression that they are using "Resident" as the legal term. the act of establishing residency. I was a resident of Illinois at the time.

There are how many millions living in this country their entire lives that no one recognizes as a "resident?" Extended vacationers?

Being this is a tax issue, and I paid IL taxes for this specific expense, what else can I claim in regards to residency? I just don't understand how I am suddenly determined as homeless the minute a drive my car out-of-state. Is this my status whenever I am on vacation?

 

[nerp]

Just a minute ago I read about how you were bitching about people escaping debts and how the colonies were a haven for deadbeats. Now I see you're trying to gyp the system. Nice. When I see you bitching about taxes later on, I'll be sure to remind you that tax cheats like yourself help keep taxes up.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
If you really want them to side with you, sounding like an ass is not the way to do it. Apparently you haven't learned much in life.

Well, I don't mean to sound like an ass, just sarcastically humorous. Though my GF says it sounds asshole-ish, so there is indeed some editing to be done ("preposterous" bit in the intro is getting tossed for sure)

Actually, though, I've been forced to be a major asshole to Comcast several times in the past. It ended up getting my digital package + broadband for ~ $20 month. So it does get you somewhere, sometimes.

By the way, I resent your "sounding like an ass" 2nd sentence.

I'm not the type to say 'never', but in this case, I'll do it.

Government agencies will never think you're clever or funny from stuff like that.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs
From the OP and your last two posts, it sounds like you didn't actually live in Illinois when you paid the movers, you just think you can get away with claiming you did because you had a lease. Good luck with that.

well, we'll see. I am under the impression that they are using "Resident" as the legal term. the act of establishing residency. I was a resident of Illinois at the time.

There are how many millions living in this country their entire lives that no one recognizes as a "resident?" Extended vacationers?

Being this is a tax issue, and I paid IL taxes for this specific expense, what else can I claim in regards to residency? I just don't understand how I am suddenly determined as homeless the minute a drive my car out-of-state. Is this my status whenever I am on vacation?

I don't know what requirements Illinois has to establish residency - you'd have to look that up. But all it takes is some common sense to see the difference between moving to another state and taking a vacation. When you take a vacation you have a home that you intend to return to, and you eventually return to it. When you move, you don't return to stay at your prior home.

Again, I don't know what requirements Illinois has, but I suspect that if you stayed in your Illinois apartment after your belongings were delivered to California, then you can write off the moving expenses in IL. If you went to CA at the same time as your belongings and you didn't return to stay in your IL apartment, then you're not entitled to write off the moving expenses in IL. IL doesn't really care if you never got paid in CA in 2008, that's between you and CA. If you intend to lie to get a tax break that you're not entitled to - again, good luck with that.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: nerp
Just a minute ago I read about how you were bitching about people escaping debts and how the colonies were a haven for deadbeats. Now I see you're trying to gyp the system. Nice. When I see you bitching about taxes later on, I'll be sure to remind you that tax cheats like yourself help keep taxes up.

uh....this is about establishing a record of residency and which state I'm supposed to claim these deductions.

Has nothing to do with taking money from the state (they would reduce my $60 refund to $12, I think; I already mentioned that I don't care about the refund). This is about establishing a record for tax purposes. So that, for whatever reason, the Feds look over my 08 taxes many years down the road, see I claimed moving expenses for '08, yet no state-record of moving expenses for the same year.

It's also a matter of "is this merely an issue of meeting the terms of claiming residency?"

I'm a bit angry that the state forces me to go through this without having done anything on their end to provide an argument as to why they didn't consider me a resident beyond the simple "default" stamp. I had considered the IL-specific laws posted earlier by mugs and Boomer back when I was filing. sure, this annoys me, which is why I drunkenly typed out a first draft last night.

Please explain how I'm trying to be a tax cheat, here. Do you understand the issue, now?

and for the record, you totally misread my post about debt in the insurance thread. I pointed out that we are all debtors by blood, extremely dependent on debt for our economy to function, and so having no sympathy for debtors is both hypocritical and quite ignorant in regards to the system. take a look at it again.

Do you not find it ludicrous that during the time of debtor's prisons, murderers had sentences of time-served, were given meals and quarters with beds, whereas debtors, who could be sent to prison with no term, were forced to fend for themselves--food was never provided, they lived in rat-infested dungeons, etc. You could be sent for a $10 debt if your creditors so chose.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs
From the OP and your last two posts, it sounds like you didn't actually live in Illinois when you paid the movers, you just think you can get away with claiming you did because you had a lease. Good luck with that.

well, we'll see. I am under the impression that they are using "Resident" as the legal term. the act of establishing residency. I was a resident of Illinois at the time.

There are how many millions living in this country their entire lives that no one recognizes as a "resident?" Extended vacationers?

Being this is a tax issue, and I paid IL taxes for this specific expense, what else can I claim in regards to residency? I just don't understand how I am suddenly determined as homeless the minute a drive my car out-of-state. Is this my status whenever I am on vacation?

I don't know what requirements Illinois has to establish residency - you'd have to look that up. But all it takes is some common sense to see the difference between moving to another state and taking a vacation. When you take a vacation you have a home that you intend to return to, and you eventually return to it. When you move, you don't return to stay at your prior home.

Again, I don't know what requirements Illinois has, but I suspect that if you stayed in your Illinois apartment after your belongings were delivered to California, then you can write off the moving expenses in IL. If you went to CA at the same time as your belongings and you didn't return to stay in your IL apartment, then you're not entitled to write off the moving expenses in IL. IL doesn't really care if you never got paid in CA in 2008, that's between you and CA. If you intend to lie to get a tax break that you're not entitled to - again, good luck with that.

:roll:

again, I'm not trying to get a break, here. I don't care about the piddly IL refund.

I simply want my records to match in case the feds try to hunt me down in the future claiming that no state has a record of my moving in 08. WTF is that so hard to understand? I've already explained that I don't care about the freaking IL refund. In this regard, I have to assume that I will be unable to claim moving expenses for CA in 09 when the move occurred in 08, correct?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs
From the OP and your last two posts, it sounds like you didn't actually live in Illinois when you paid the movers, you just think you can get away with claiming you did because you had a lease. Good luck with that.

well, we'll see. I am under the impression that they are using "Resident" as the legal term. the act of establishing residency. I was a resident of Illinois at the time.

There are how many millions living in this country their entire lives that no one recognizes as a "resident?" Extended vacationers?

Being this is a tax issue, and I paid IL taxes for this specific expense, what else can I claim in regards to residency? I just don't understand how I am suddenly determined as homeless the minute a drive my car out-of-state. Is this my status whenever I am on vacation?

I don't know what requirements Illinois has to establish residency - you'd have to look that up. But all it takes is some common sense to see the difference between moving to another state and taking a vacation. When you take a vacation you have a home that you intend to return to, and you eventually return to it. When you move, you don't return to stay at your prior home.

Again, I don't know what requirements Illinois has, but I suspect that if you stayed in your Illinois apartment after your belongings were delivered to California, then you can write off the moving expenses in IL. If you went to CA at the same time as your belongings and you didn't return to stay in your IL apartment, then you're not entitled to write off the moving expenses in IL. IL doesn't really care if you never got paid in CA in 2008, that's between you and CA. If you intend to lie to get a tax break that you're not entitled to - again, good luck with that.

:roll:

again, I'm not trying to get a break, here. I don't care about the piddly IL refund.

I simply want my records to match in case the feds try to hunt me down in the future claiming that no state has a record of my moving in 08. WTF is that so hard to understand? I've already explained that I don't care about the freaking IL refund. In this regard, I have to assume that I will be unable to claim moving expenses for CA in 09 when the move occurred in 08, correct?

Why would the federal government care about whether you qualified for the deduction in Illinois? All you need to do is make sure you met the requirements for the federal deduction.

Maybe you'll be able to claim the moving expenses in CA on your 2009 return, maybe you won't. You'd have to check with CA on that. Moving expense deductions are usually based on getting a job within a certain period of time after moving, so since you never got paid in CA in 2008 you may be able to deduct it in 2009.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mugs

Why would the federal government care about whether you qualified for the deduction in Illinois? All you need to do is make sure you met the requirements for the federal deduction.

Maybe you'll be able to claim the moving expenses in CA on your 2009 return, maybe you won't. You'd have to check with CA on that. Moving expense deductions are usually based on getting a job within a certain period of time after moving, so since you never got paid in CA in 2008 you may be able to deduct it in 2009.

yes, this is the main problem. There were a lot of correllaries to that issue when I was going over the filing. I'm outside of the standard hiring period for deductions within 08, but I remember, on the Fed level, at least, I could claim for 09 if necessary. The states were a bit different. My situation, as it worked out, just wouldn't fit comfortably within one of the possible laws. Honestly, I feel that claiming 09 deductions for 08 expenses in CA is even more dubious than using the documents I have to claim residency in IL during the move, which is why I wanted to avoid that initially.

I was actually quite excited that this would be the *last time I had to deal with BS IL tax laws, but alas. (Of course, now I get to deal with the "awesomeness" that is the CA tax law....)

I *think I can claim on CA 09; guess I need to get in touch with a CA tax adviser. I know my dad's CPA is certified for CA......hrm.

 

[nerp]

I apologize for being an anus grooming dickshitter. I got sloppy.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: nerp
I apologize for being an anus grooming dickshitter. I got sloppy.

lol...






:beer:?

 

[BoomerD]

Am I reading these correctly, You moved to Kahleeforneeya without a job lined up? You moved for OTHER reasons?

If so, even the feds may deny your moving expenses.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Am I reading these correctly, You moved to Kahleeforneeya without a job lined up? You moved for OTHER reasons?

If so, even the feds may deny your moving expenses.

So is the CPA advice that I keep hearing that the specific reason does not matter, and I should always claim moving expenses a crock of shit?

I was honestly curious about this as well, and I went over and over the federal guidelines, and it sure seemed legit. New rule?

I moved to get a new job/start school, hopefully. But yeah, nothing lined up at the time.

 

[BoomerD]

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3903.pdf

"Purpose of Form
Use Form 3903 to figure your moving
expense deduction for a move related to
the start of work at a new principal place
of work (workplace)."

"Who Can Deduct Moving
Expenses
If you move to a new home because of a
new principal workplace, you may be able
to deduct your moving expenses whether
you are self-employed or an employee. But
you must meet both the distance test and
time test that follow."

"Time Test

If you are an employee, you must work full
time in the general area of your new
workplace for at least 39 weeks during the
12 months right after you move. If you are
self-employed, you must work full time in
the general area of your new workplace for
at least 39 weeks during the first 12
months and a total of at least 78 weeks
during the 24 months right after you move."

 

[BoomerD]

BTW, if you have Kahleeforneeya income following the move:

http://ftb.ca.gov/forms/2008/08_540nrcains.pdf

"Line 26 ? Moving Expenses
California law and federal law are the same for moving expenses. If you moved:
? Into California in connection with your new job, enter the amount from column A, line 26, in column E, line 26.
? Out of California in connection with your new job, enter -0- on line 26.
Exception: If you moved out of California in connection with your new job and received compensation from that job attributable to a California source, your moving expense adjustment will be limited by the ratio of California source compensation from the new job to total compensation from the new job."

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3903.pdf

"Purpose of Form
Use Form 3903 to figure your moving
expense deduction for a move related to
the start of work at a new principal place
of work (workplace)."

"Who Can Deduct Moving
Expenses
If you move to a new home because of a
new principal workplace, you may be able
to deduct your moving expenses whether
you are self-employed or an employee. But
you must meet both the distance test and
time test that follow."

"Time Test

If you are an employee, you must work full
time in the general area of your new
workplace for at least 39 weeks during the
12 months right after you move. If you are
self-employed, you must work full time in
the general area of your new workplace for
at least 39 weeks during the first 12
months and a total of at least 78 weeks
during the 24 months right after you move."

yeah, I will meet the time test by a week. Though it does look like the moving expenses are more appropriate for California....

I've been told repeatedly by those that do this stuff that the move itself is certainly legit within the Federal laws, so that I should claim it. (yes, sounds sketchy to me, but the time test does only say within the twelve months--does not say when the first week of those 12 months needs to happen. Language provides room for holding multiple jobs during that time period, so long as the "full time" employment of "39 weeks" "within the general area of your new workplace" is met.)

Am I just way off on this.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Am I reading these correctly, You moved to Kahleeforneeya without a job lined up? You moved for OTHER reasons?

If so, even the feds may deny your moving expenses.

So is the CPA advice that I keep hearing that the specific reason does not matter, and I should always claim moving expenses a crock of shit?

I was honestly curious about this as well, and I went over and over the federal guidelines, and it sure seemed legit. New rule?

I moved to get a new job/start school, hopefully. But yeah, nothing lined up at the time.

You don't have to have a job lined up, you just have to get a full-time job and keep it.

If you went over this and you meet the requirements, you're fine: http://www.irs.gov/publication...en_US_publink100043405

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Am I reading these correctly, You moved to Kahleeforneeya without a job lined up? You moved for OTHER reasons?

If so, even the feds may deny your moving expenses.

So is the CPA advice that I keep hearing that the specific reason does not matter, and I should always claim moving expenses a crock of shit?

I was honestly curious about this as well, and I went over and over the federal guidelines, and it sure seemed legit. New rule?

I moved to get a new job/start school, hopefully. But yeah, nothing lined up at the time.

You don't have to have a job lined up, you just have to get a full-time job and keep it.

If you went over this and you meet the requirements, you're fine: http://www.irs.gov/publication...en_US_publink100043405

yeah, so that's what I understood as well. I definitely meet the distance/time requirements (at least will meet the time requirement, as that is allowed, too; based on move & filing time.)

I'll be speaking with a CA CPA soon (left a message) to iron out the state-claims. i was beginning to think I was going to have the Feds up my ass on this

Pops mentioned to me that the state generally falls in line with the Feds, so is it a further argument that if the Feds accept my moving expenses, then IL has less to claim against me?