Welcome back! Ask questions, get answers, and join our large community of tax professionals.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

CA SMLLC - NR Income

amec
Level 5

I have a client that is a CA resident but owns a SMLLC that only holds rental property outside of CA (so all gross receipts are non CA source). All of the income and expenses for the property are coded to the other state. And yet, Lacerte insists on including the income as CA sourced rental income on schedule IW. 

Is there something I am likely missing in the data entry?

0 Cheers
5 Comments 5
strongsilence
Level 11

Properly Source the Income to the Other State

  1. Go to the Schedule E or 8825 input screens.

  2. Set the "State Use Code" or "State Code" to the other state (e.g., TX, AZ).

  3. Use the Multi-State Input screen and allocate all gross income and expenses to the non-CA state.

  4. Under the “CA Schedule IW” input section, ensure that the rental income is marked as non-CA source

BobKamman
Level 15

I am missing something here.  As a California resident, the income is still taxable to him, right?  Is he filing a return with the other state also?  Which state allows a credit for taxes paid to the other?  

0 Cheers
amec
Level 5

As an individual the client also files a form 568 with CA as a SMLLC. The form requires you to enter CA source gross receipts to pay the gross receipts fee on that amount (in addition to the required $800). But this income is not CA source, it's rental income from another state.

The client does pay tax on the income on the CA 540 return on based on schedule E (+/- federal/CA differences).

0 Cheers
amec
Level 5

It's a schedule E. And I thought there was a state use code or state code, but maybe that's just for 8825's since I can't find it.

I can go into the State Taxes screen under CA SMLLC and override the amount, but with the proper coding in the schedule E screen I feel like I shouldn't have to do that? I try to avoid overrides when I can.

 

0 Cheers
BobKamman
Level 15

Well, at least he has the false sense of security that comes from thinking an LLC prevents you from being sued as an individual.  He's paying California the annual fee, but he doesn't have an umbrella policy that would provide real protection?