Received: by 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr418412pbc.0.1336433402292;
        Mon, 07 May 2012 16:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: pr3ni271pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!usenet.stanford.edu!jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us!kamens.brookline.ma.us!robomod!not-for-mail
X-MTM-Policy: http://www.asktax.org/
X-MTM-Info-1: Send submissions to          m...@asktax.org
X-MTM-Info-2: Send technical complaints to mtm-ad...@asktax.org
X-MTM-Info-3: Send policy complaints to    mtm-modera...@asktax.org
X-Comment: moderators do not necessarily agree or disagree with this article.
X-Robomod-Author: STUMP, ichu...@algebra.com (Igor Chudov)
X-Robomod-Maintainer: mtm-ad...@asktax.org (Jonathan Kamens)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:28:07 EDT
From: "removeps-groups" <removeps-gro...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: misc.taxes.moderated
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <jo9lpq$7gh$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <20623204.36.1336102265837.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbow2> <jo1mvk$1vn$1@dont-email.me> <jo4374$9v4$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jo47tn$b75$1@reader1.panix.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.73 on 128.177.28.63
Approved: Misc.Taxes.Moderated <misc-taxes-modera...@asktax.org>
Subject: Re: how to amend amended return
Lines: 46
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP misc.taxes.moderated
	iQCVAwUBT6hahybInct/O6rNAQH9pAP9EpXOmrZ2POcznymBTcZBuMSCN4BfMluy
	pB7QaM2oMpVMNFKhY3EKivfdOngDqIquXFYYaF8wrC3/Li2oiFhjhYKjg0LlirR5
	6NgKasdnpeLcr9MInkHiq/dkpTytQqHJVUgeE4cTG8R5bFa3p01PFxIVSQgpfZPC
	i6+mXezJGwA=
	=6O+X

"Arthur Kamlet" <kam...@panix.com> wrote in message 
news:jo47tn$b75$1@reader1.panix.com...

> In article <jo4374$9v...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> removeps-groups <removeps-gro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Mark Bole" <ma...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:jo1mvk$1vn$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>> Given that the most common purpose of a 1040X is to calculate a new 
>>> refund
>>> or balance due, it only makes sense to compare new amounts to the most
>>> recent return that generated a refund or balance due.  Comparing to the
>>> initial return after subsequent amendments would not allow you to
>>> calculate a new refund or balance due.
>>
>>Your logic is not correct.  I did the 1040-X both ways, and in the method
>>where column A is the amount in the very original return, the line 17 that
>>says amount of overpayment (which is basically the refund from the 
>>oringinal
>>return) will now be that plus the refund of the first amended return.  Or 
>>if
>>you owed money in the first amended return, then line 17 will be refund of
>>original return minus money owed of first amended return.  Either way line
>>19 and 21 work out the same.
>
>
> I have to agree with Mark here.  If you did the second 1040x using
> the figures from the first 1040X, you would generally see different
> results on each 1040X.

I did it both ways and saw no difference in the end number.  That's why I 
asked the question in the first place.  I'm not sold on the idea that one 
way is more logical than the other -- just I'll follow the rule, whatever it 
is. 

-- 
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used,   >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties  >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer.                  >>
<<                                                         >>
<<   The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts   >>
<<  to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy  >>
<<                  are at www.asktax.org.                 >>
<<         Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved.         >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>