I'm with West Point Dads, wife with WP Moms, and both with WP 2020 parents. You know we all root for each other, except when we play each other. I even rooted for the Navy kid on Jeopardy last week.View attachment 869
You are a WP parent but you aren't with West Point Parents?
#oneteamonefight
And the AFA parents let you linger here???
I agree it's the parent or the child in this scenario. I was trying to allude to situation where it's, say, grandma (a third party) and not the parent nor the child. These things happen. But I've made my point and am not arguing with whatever anyone decides to do. I think it's the child in the academy scenario but that's just my opinion after years of doing taxes and sorting through this with when the kid went AD myself.Kinnem, I agree. There is no magical third party that can claim. It is either the parent or the child. And for illustrative purposes, let's take this one step further, into their second year at the academy. Would you still argue that the child is not at all supporting themselves for the full calendar year? Is it OK to continue to claim them the second year? (Aside from the fact that they would not qualify under the residency test, let's ignore that in this scenario, as brovol is solely arguing support.) So based on your logic, you should be able to claim them all four years because the child is not supporting themselves? By virtue of the fact that they are a cadet/mid at an SA, no one else is supporting them, except themselves.
The difference between being a dependent or not is like $4000+, so it's worth getting it right.
$4000 deduction, but only $1000 or less tax difference, depending on your tax bracket.
The difference between being a dependent or not is like $4000+, so it's worth getting it right.
$4000 deduction, but only $1000 or less tax difference, depending on your tax bracket.
But yeah, tax advice on the internet. Take it or leave it!
But yeah, tax advice on the internet. Take it or leave it!
It bears repeating.
Actually, the actual code is far less confusing if you read it all by itself, and without the comments and conclusions of everyone. The language is clear. The discussion has gone on for awhile, and I haven't seen an authoritative citation which conflicts with the general language I mentioned. The Academies are not authority, even if they were to disagree. Just saying.I must admit, it's still confusing. Line 23 only gets used (per line 22) if the child needs to be tested as a "qualified relative". If the child meets "other tests to be a qualifying child" you don't look at line 23 and then would not count the Academy's support.
I hate the confusing tax code!!! I have to admit Brovol might have a point!
As active duty cadets can get TurboTax (Federal and State) for free.
I know it is well beyond normal tax time, but wanted to see how many other USAFA cadets were charged for filing with TurboTax this past year.
Found out from our DD a couple of weeks ago that when she hit the "submit", TurboTax wanted $80 before it would file for her. She said other cadets she knows had the same thing happen. Whatever happened to "free"? It would be cheaper for her to have our CPA file her taxes.
I know she entered "E-1" for rank. I'm wondering since this rank may not match what is on the W-2 that must be used to confirm military status, if this caused the fee.