Thanks for clarifying and including the screen shots. I think I got points #1 and #2, but my response wasn't clear enough. You are correct that the 1099-B worksheet should be on the main screen in your screenshots. (I'm referring to that as the "checklist" as that's the name of its tab at the top.) And it was actually our intention that it should be there, which is why we'll need to investigate why that's not showing up in production. I apologize I'm not super familiar with that screen as it's a navigation screen unique to Proseries Basic and I work more in the form design and calculations that are shared across our products. But I do know the 1099-B worksheet should have been added, so we'll be looking into why that's not showing up and then adding the 1099-B worksheet - with an "add more" option - to the Capital Gains & Losses portion of the checklist. Regarding item #3, the functionality you're looking for - the ability to type a complete form name and have us populate form(s) that match it - is found in the "Where Do I Enter?" tool. It's the green button with a question mark. The screenshot you have in #3 - the "Find Form" tool - is a tool to allow users to quickly pull up a specific form by typing a specific, short code for that form. The code for each form is the letters in blue.  So if you look two columns to the left of what you have highlighted, you'll see "Form 1099-B Wks" listed with a bunch of other forms related to Schedule D, and the "F" and "B" are in blue as the clue that those two characters are what you use to quickly pull up that form. The "Where Do I Enter?" tool is for searching for all possible locations you might want to enter certain information. The "Find Form" tool is for quickly bringing up a specific form when you know the shortcut code.

Hi @TaxGuyBill , thanks for the feedback. First, make sure you've updated to the latest release. The "add another" option on the 1099-B worksheet has been in place for at least couple of releases now, so you should be seeing that. And just an FYI, it's optional to add a name for the worksheet, so you can skip that step when opening it from Schedule D if you don't need to reconcile multiple account statements. Also, if you use "Find Form", you can locate the Form 1099-B Wks under the list of Schedule D form, or by just typing "FB" as pointed out below for Proseries Professional Edition. (The "FB" method works for Professional and Basic.) Regarding the "Where Do I Enter", as well as the "Checklist" of "Income" forms, thanks for bringing that to our attention. Those should show the 1099-B worksheet as well, but I just tried it now and see that they are not. We'll need to do some investigation into why these two navigation elements don't seem to be working.   

Yep. Any asset sale, unless it's connected to a business or rental property, goes on the 1099B worksheet. (Assets used in a business or rental are reported on the depreciation worksheet for that asset, or on the worksheet for nondepreciable property for that rental or business.)

A colleague brought this thread to my attention recently, so I thought I'd hop on to share some of the reasons we decided to "fix what wasn't broken" 🙂 The investments area has been problematic for many users for many years for a variety of reasons. You may or may not have noticed there were actually THREE different entry points for investment sales (the table on the Schedule D for very simple sales, the Capital Gains (Losses) Detail Entry Worksheet for slightly more complex sales and imported sales, and finally the Capital Gain (Loss) Transaction Worksheet for the most complex sales). These three separate entry points were the source of endless user frustration and contacts to customer support. So the first problem we fixed was making a single point of entry for investment sales. (As an aside on the name, calling it the Form 1099-B Worksheet is simply following the naming pattern that Proseries has used for decades. Income types that are *usually* reported on particular form -- interest on 1099-INT, dividends on 1099-DIV, etc -- get a worksheet named after the form where they're usually reported. Of course, tax pros know those types of income won't always be reported on the official IRS form, but for decades pros haven't seemed to have much trouble with the idea that interest goes on the 1099-INT worksheet -- even if not on an official IRS 1099-INT -- and so forth. So the naming decision was simply to follow what we generally do with worksheet names.) The second big issue we wanted to address was difficulty with reconciling multiple accounts statements. Previously, all sales, even if from multiple accounts, went into a single table, making reconciliation quite difficult. You could get a proceeds summary by account, but only if you entered the name of the broker and/or account for each and every sale -- a real hassle if trying to enter multiple accounts with dozens (or hundreds or more) of sales each. The new design makes the entry worksheet multi-copy, so you can create a separate copy for each account, and automatically get a complete summary of basis, proceeds, and adjustments by 8949 category that should closely align with the statement clients get from brokers. This is tremendously valuable when dealing with clients that have a lot of trading activity. Unfortunately it also means we can't put the table on the Schedule D since there can only be one copy of that. But it's just two clicks of the mouse from Schedule D to create the new worksheet. Of course, if you're dealing with a client with only a few trades and you don't care about reconciling the statements, then throw all the sales on a single worksheet if you want to. It's a tremendously valuable tool in some situations, but you don't have to use it if that's not your client's situation. Finally, with respect to what fields were included on the main worksheet vs what fields required clicking through to the new Adjustments worksheet, this was a straight-forward data driven decision. Clicking through to the supporting worksheet to enter a value takes somewhere in the rough ballpark of 50 times longer than simply tabbing through a field on the primary worksheet. So it logically follows that if a field is needed by significantly less than 2% of investment sales (i.e. 1 in 50), then it will be faster for pros if we move the field off the main entry worksheet (where they would always have tab through the empty field even though it rarely applies) to the supporting worksheet. So with corrected cost basis, for example, we found that about 0.5% of investment sales reported a corrected cost basis. So for every sale with corrected cost basis that now takes ~50 times longer than simply tabbing to the field on the worksheet, there are about 199 sales that can be entered a little bit faster because there's not an unnecessary field to tab through. The net result is pros should spend about 1/4 as much time, on average, in navigation connected to corrected cost basis (whether it's navigating to make an entry in this field on another worksheet, or tabbing through an unneeded field for the >99% of sales that don't need it). The lowest use fields that made it onto the primary worksheet were the adjustment amount and code fields, which are actually used just under 2% of the time. We decided to include them even though they're just under the 2% threshold because we think their use will become more common now that fewer adjustments are handled on the main entry table. The adjustment codes are all listed right below the entry table, and we suspect many pros will get comfortable with using these codes for some of the simple adjustments rather than navigating to the Adjustments worksheet. (e.g. putting a C in the adjustment code field is much quicker than navigating to the Adjustments worksheet) Unfortunately, while we would have liked to put all the codes in a simple dropdown, our current system doesn't provide a way for us to do a dropdown that supports multiple selections. (e.g. it's entirely possible to need to make a B and an O adjustment for the same sale, which wouldn't be possible with a dropdown) Obviously it's tough to adapt when something changes that you're used to. And of course there will be some specific situations where the new approach does take a little more time. But I just wanted to give the background so you can see pretty much every concern raised here was already considered, and the decisions we made were driven entirely by data around what types of entries our pros actually need to make and how to make that as efficient as possible *on average*. For the overwhelming majority of your clients, we think you're going to find the new approach is significantly more straight-forward and efficient.

Interesting...this sounds like a tax court case in the making. Can't answer this for you, but a few considerations: - The nature of unclaimed property is that it's property that already belongs to you, so as a general rule it wouldn't be taxable income. - Since this property experienced realized gains, the gain component would seem to fall outside the general rule. - Tax court has a well-established precedent (Cesarini v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 3 (N.D. Ohio 1969)) that when there is income from found property, it's taxable in the year found. Putting those three items together would reasonably lead to the conclusion that the cash that represents gain would be taxable in the year recovered. Of course the stock shares had a basis of their FMV on the date of death of the decedent, so only the excess of cash over that basis would be gain. The more interesting question is whether the taxpayer can at least get LT capital gain/qualified dividend treatment on the gain. Cesarini argued that if they had to recognize income, it should at least be LT capital gain income, but they lost this argument. The facts were pretty different from the current situation though. I'm not aware of any case law or regs that would address this question.

This is an interesting discussion, and I haven't kept up with everything the IRS has published on this particular issue, but I can tell you that verbally the IRS has indicated to industry that they emphatically do NOT consider it reasonable to treat silence on SE deductions in the proposed regs as an affirmative statement not to include them.

Regarding sec 179 or bonus depreciation, anything that's allowable in the current year should generally also be applied to QBI. Since anything allowable in the current year is already in net income of Sch C, and that's the starting point for QBI, you shouldn't need any further adjustments. Unless I'm still not understanding the scenario. K-1s are a little more complicated b/c of ambiguity in IRS instructions regarding what should be included in the box 17/20 (depending on whether 1120S or 1065 k1) QBI amount. You'll just have to look closely at the K-1 and supporting statements to see how the preparer calculated the QBI amount. If the QBI amount in box 17/20 has already subtracted items like section 179, then you don't need to make further adjustments. (Except in the rare case where the k1 already subtracted 179 expenses, but they're not allowed at the individual level, in which case you'll want to add disallowed 179 expenses back to the QBI amount in box 17/20.) If the box 17/20 QBI amount has NOT accounted for those separately stated items, then you'll need to make entries in the QBI Deduction Info wksht, line E, to account for those items to the extent they're connected to QBI.

Items 1-3 are already adjusted in row E of the QBI Deduction Info worksheet at the bottom of Schedule C and the K1 worksheets (and other forms that generate QBI). I would need an example of what you're talking about regarding 4 & 5. As far as using the Proposed Regs to avoid backing out SE deductions, the IRS has made very clear that's not permissible. The silence of the proposed regs with respect to SE deductions was not a statement that they should NOT reduce QBI. Even under the proposed regs you had to back out any deductions connected to qualified business income, the final regs merely specified that yes, the SE deductions fall under that category.

@corinnerichard Marc is correct. I was confusing the 1031 reporting rules with options trading rules (where you report a transaction in the year the transaction closes rather than opens). For the 1031 you should prepare the 8824 in the year the transaction opened. Hope you see this.

Since everything was completed in one year, the Form 8824 should provide the IRS with all the info they need to account for the 1099-S. That said, what some preparers will do is still report the 1099-S on Form 8949 using code O to zero out the gain. The idea is doing this makes it less likely the IRS system will think there's unaccounted for 1099-S income because they fail to connect it to the 8824. I don't have any hard data on whether this reduces the likelihood of IRS correspondence, but it's something that some preparers choose to do. Regarding the asset worksheets, the new asset basically takes the place of the old asset, it's often as simple as just renaming the asset in the worksheet and continue depreciating on the schedule it's been depreciating on. Any additions to basis (like additional cash contributed for new property) are treated as a new and separate asset. So just create a new asset of the same type to start the depreciation on the additional basis. (It's basically like doing a property improvement and the improvement becomes its own asset.)