I'm looking at some work that someone did in Lacerte and scratching my head wondering if this level of detail is needed. Company sold four of its assets, for a gain of $175. The fixed asset software that calculated this value correctly dealt with the depreciation to arrive at that gain. The gain was journaled to an "other income" account for "capital asset gains/losses" on the books of the Company and that account is brought into Lacerte as "Other Income".
What the person working with this data did is delete the other income and instead go to Schedule D / Form 4797 and manually recreate each asset that was sold. The depreciation for each individual asset, sale price, cost basis, etc, is entered manually. And then Lacerte calculates the same $175 gain, given the same set of facts, and produces a Form 4797 P2 showing the detail for each asset.
Maybe this shows great diligence, but my question is whether this level of asset-by-asset detail is *required by law*. It seems like an awful lot of work to have to manually recreate your fixed asset system data in the tax software whenever you sell an asset. It would surely be nicer to just show this as an other income item and let them audit if they don't believe the number.
Is the issue about being able to sell at a capital gains rate, or is the Schedule D needed in order to balance out other things on the return concerning fixed assets?
Any insights on how to aggregate this and make it a bit more efficient?
nish
========================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: I would have thought the asset would have been created in association with form 4562. Yet form 4562 seems to be missing in action. Not a good sign. Recreating the 4562 to conform with previous depreciation schedules seems to be in order first.