Form 7203 limitations should flow into schedule e

[mike9]

please flow loss limitations to schedule K passive non passive section activity and schedule. E

even the cheapest tax programs do this effortlessly 

limit NOL carry forwards to 80% of Income without nol 

currently we have to overwrite this 

[sjrcpa]

The program should also apply the basis limitations for partnerships.

[TaxGuyBill]

Yep.

But there is no indication that Intuit has any intention of doing it.

In regard to the NOL, if I remember correctly, it is 80% of taxable income, WITH regard to the NOL.  IF that is the case, that is a complicated Iterative calculation, so I understand why Intuit isn't doing it.  It would be great if they did, but it is somewhat complicated and not explicitly spelled out in IRS Publications, which is likely why Intuit isn't doing it.

[mike9]

It is 80% of Taxable Income before NOL

The Rule

FORR NOL's arising in tax years beginning after 12/31/2027 (post TCJA) the deduction in ANY carryforward year is LIMITED to 80% of Taxable Income ( Computed before the NOL ) 

pre 2018 NOL is not subject to this They still offset 100%

If you got pre 2018 and post 2017 the pre is used first 

To make this even more  exciting the CARES act temporarily suspended the 80% limit for 201-2020

but it is back for 2021 forward

[TaxGuyBill]

Thank you.  I had phrased my prior response poorly and maybe I'm still wrong, but are you sure it is calculated "before" the NOL, rather than "without" the NOL?

My point is things like Social Security and AGI-based deductions.

Do you start with 80% of taxable income and then permanently stop?

Or do you start with 80% of taxable income, then see the amount of taxable Social Security or other AGI-based deductions changes the taxable income (not counting the NOL) and need to re-figure the 80%, which in turn will adjust things again.  That is what I was referring to when I mentioned the Iterative calculation.  I've seen other posts that indicate that is what needs to be done, but maybe I'm wrong.

[mike9]

Yes it does sound like a circular dependency. LOL

As far as I can tell the intent of the rule was to limit the NOL based on TI BEFORE NOL, regardless of the  difference in AGI because of it