Quote from balda:
Enrolled Agent is right.
Another CPA poster is right.
icarus is wrong, no wonder he was paid $4.10 per hour. (by the way either EA, CPA or an Attorney can represent clients in court). I wouldn't diss an Enrolled Agent, most of them know much more than any JD.
In SoCal many people pay 3-4K monthly mortgage plus $200-300 in utilities.
Those that can afford to pay 40K for the house are usually in 25% tax bracket. That is at least $100 per month or $3 per day or 0.12c per hour, or $1,200 per year.
But what do I know I am just a CPA
You are a moron. This is not the first time you have chirped in to say I am wrong when it is plain that you are barely able to read.
Let me spell it out for you. Read slowly and carefully.
1. Nowhere have I stated or advised anyone NOT to take the home office deduction.
2. My objection was to the guy from H&R Block, my former employer when I was in college, who made the idiotic claim that because he was an enrolled agent from Block he knew for a fact that the home office deduction had no impact on audit risk. Oh yeah, it was all in the way the form was filled out. LOL
3. I passed the SEE and became an enrolled agent while I was in college. I brought that up to give my opinion that the SEE was hardly the challenging exam the EA from Block implied it to be.
4(a). I got a chuckle out of the EA from Block asserting that he knew what he was talking about because he was the one "representing the respondent in court." My query as to how he gained bar membership was a trick question which he failed to address and he instead just made an ad hominem attack on my user name. That pretty much revealed that he didn't know the process by which an EA (or CPA) may get qualified to practice in the US Tax Court by passing the US Tax Court exam, which from what I've heard is quite rigorous compared to the SEE.
4(b). Many people assume that the CPA (or EA) designation automatically allows practice before the US Tax Court, but that is false. In actuality very few CPAs and even fewer EAs get qualified for the simple reason that it is better to go to trial with a tax attorney, and also because the Tax Court is only one of three venues that hears federal tax cases. The other two venues allow only attorneys to practice; they are the US Court of Federal Claims and the US District Court.
Now let me make clear what I think about taking the home office deduction or any deduction in general: If a person qualifies to take the deduction and in his mind is worth the effort to keep records and such, by all means he should never let the possibility of an audit deter him from taking it. The truth is the probability of an audit is very low even with the home office deduction and in most cases can be handled without professional help. Moreover, if the deduction is denied at a later time, usually the consequence is just the additional tax he would have paid anyway plus interest.
That being said, I personally do not bother with it for the same reason others have stated: it doesn't amount to much. The same goes for other possible deductions that have a mixed business/personal use. For me, it's just not worth the effort to keep adequate records. I disdain paperwork which is why I refuse to trade stocks. As much as possible I keep the housekeeping shit to a minimum.