Talk:IRS tax forms

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). inactive .TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

Form 1120 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 July 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into IRS tax forms. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

For more information on Non Resident Taxation visit www.VisaTaxes.com

I see this link for a commerical service , and I am wondering if this is line with the guide ines ?--Jake Be Nice (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no thats why I removed it.

I believe these forms are issued by the IRS, so I'm placing it under category:IRS (which is a subcat of cat:taxation in the united states). Taxation is theft, btw. Paul 07:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When was form 1040EZ introduced? 209.74.147.202 03:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one tax preparer's opinion,(ERICK RODRIGUEZ BEING SUPREME RULER FOR THIS LAW, AND MICKLOW IS PLAYING WITH AN ORANGE LIKE A BABOON) the EZ form is a bad bargain for taxpayers. It exists to save only a half a page in preparation. In exchange, large categories of one's financial life are never asked about, and you don't even know what questions are worth asking of a professional, a book, or the internet. For example, a taxpayer may have (or be thinking about!) a retirement account, and reading the long form's "Retirement Savings Credit" line could give them an "Aha!" worth hundreds. A reservist may read the EZ's "Combat pay exclusion" line and think the form is soldier-safe, but then they'd miss out on the 1040's "reservist training mileage". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.226.163 (talk • contribs) on 20 January 2007.

The above comments by user IP 68.0.226.163 are not directly related to the article itself, but I have to say I completely agree with the comments. One of the dirty little secrets of tax return preparation in the United States is that there is absolutely no tax advantage to filing any short form (Form 1040A, Form 1040EZ, etc.). These forms were promulgated by the IRS for the benefit of public relations with taxpayers. Short forms actually introduce needless complexity, for reasons such as those outlined by IP 68.0.226.163. The regular long form (Form 1040) allows you to do everything you need to do, no matter how simple or complex your client's situation. Years ago I stopped bothering even remembering what the requirements for filing short forms are, as the short forms are pointless. They don't save you five seconds in preparation time; they actually make more work for you. Yours, Famspear 03:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-script: Form 1040EZ was introduced by the IRS for the 1982 tax year. I have added that to the article. Form 1040A goes back further; if I can locate information on the history of that form, I'll put that in the article for Form 1040A. The big one, Form 1040, goes back to the year 1913. Yours, Famspear 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going to 1040EZ has a bad redirect, and I am not sure how to fix it. For example, click [1] —The preceding

The two outside links to "What is a 1099" contain excessive advertisements.Rsmcphail (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)rsmcphail[reply]

I turned to this article for a possible explanation of what 'basis' is for the purposes of 1040 schedule D. I am confused by how the reinvestment of dividends effects the calculation of a mutual fund's initial value. Of course, wikipedia is not necessarily where one should go for tax advice, but for information, it might be appropriate, and I would appreciate a more in depth treament of the various tax forms, in particular on this issue. Tibetologist (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to write up a better description of IRS Form 990. I've read through hundreds of them and I find that people (even in the non-profit sector) still don't really understand them. Would anybody mind if I gave the 990 its own subsection of this article? Andrewman327 (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I often use 990s in my research (aka my day job) and I believe that they have enough information for a new article. Would anyone object? No matter what, I would draft the article in a sandbox for review here prior to going live. Andrew³²⁷ 20:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. As I know from serving on nonprofit boards, there's plenty of information to discuss with Form 990s. But make sure you summarize it at this article still. II | (t - c) 01:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the link to the Form 990 Redesign Background Documents page is http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Form-990-Redesign--Background-Documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.108.158.83 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to the the official IRS forms on IRS.gov but they were removed. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to link each of the forms to the pdf of the same form on IRS.gov? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfray (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Jrfray (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not - Wikipedia is

WP:EL, it's simply not appropriate to have external links throughout the body of the article. The article already has a link in the external links section that points to http://www.irs.gov/ from which there's a clear link at the top pointing to forms and publications. It might make sense to refine that link to instead point to the appropriate sub-page at http://www.irs.gov/Forms-&-Pubs - but that's the extent of linking that would be appropriate here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050426051312/http://www.irs.gov:80/instructions/i990-ez/ to http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i990-ez/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified one external link on IRS tax forms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523043941/http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php to http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IRS tax forms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219044314/http://www.boardsource.org/dl.asp?document_id=681 to http://www.boardsource.org/dl.asp?document_id=681

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across the section of this article describing the purpose of Schedule 2 being "to report certain other types of income, such as a child's unearned income" which struck me as startlingly incorrect, to the point where I pulled up the archived IRS documents from 2018 to search for that fiscal's year's treatment of such earnings, which as far as I can find are to be reported on form 8814, which in turn is reported on Schedule 1 line 21.

The Schedule 2 document for 2018 was an extremely short document simply titled "Tax", with boxes only for alternative minimum tax, and excess advance premium tax credit repayment. It has never had anything to do with reporting income, only the unusual or additional taxes on income. I changed this description to read "to report additional taxes owed, such as alternative minimum tax, advance premium tax credit repayment, self-employment taxes, and taxes on IRAs" the second two items being true of the modern (2021) version.

I only write this in the talk page because what I wrote is so different from what was originally there that I fear I have missed something. Was there some historical reason that Schedule 2 was supposed to be about unearned child's income, or was Schedule 2 the name of an older document that was confused for the 1040 Schedule 2?

edit: I read the Motley Fool source for this portion of the article, and it appears the source article is incorrect but not quite as incorrect as what was written here.

WillisHershey (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]