Schedule E data doesn't flow to Tax Planner when using RENTS (edit)

Cyclist

I've asked this question before in Sept 2021 to no avail. The problem detailed then continues to exist at present. For background, here's the link to this closed discussion is included at the end of this post. In a nutshell, in Tax Planner, looking at Schedule E, Rents, the associated tax form line items is set to Schedule E:Rents Received, of which my Category "Rental Income" is associated. Despite the fact that I create a Business Invoice with a line item that has Category set to Rental Income, it will NOT carry to the Tax Planner. Doing same thing in a checking account register behaves likewise. It turns out that you need to also populate the Tag field with a Tag that has been designated as type Property. This begs the question as to why. The bigger problem is that when setting a tag in the Business module, tags with a Property type are not available (only Business type tags), rendering it impossible to get line items entered with a category associated with a Schedule E tax line to flow to the Tax Planner (you can, incidentally, select a property tag in the check register, which alleviates the problem for items originating there - not possible from an Invoice register, however). Bottom line is that it makes no sense to require a property type tag at all. If the user selects a category that is associated with a Tax Schedule E tax line, no matter what type of register (Checking, Invoice, A/R, A/P, etc.), it ought to flow to Schedule E in Tax Planner. Hopefully, someone from Quicken will weigh in on this. I really depend on accurate info in Tax Planner throughout the year to determine whether I need to make estimated payments, engage in loss harvesting, etc. Currently, I must remember to override Tax Planner (using User Entered) to populate all my Schedule E Income/Expense lines to get an accurate picture. Here's the link to my original post that explains somewhat in greater detail, and the various testing I did to try to ascertain what Quicken was actually doing "under the covers".

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7898590/property-vs-business-tags-affect-tax-planner-data

Rocket J Squirrel

Your post is unreadable. Please add appropriate paragraph breaks.

Cyclist

OK - just in case anyone is interested, I had a chance to experiment with this on a new dataset (though someone from Quicken should have been able to answer this 2 years ago).

When entering transactions with a category that has been assigned to a Tax Line Item on Schedule E, it WILL flow through to the Tax Planner … UNTIL you enter a Property in the Rental Property module. Once you have a Property, it takes not only a category (e.g. Rental Income), but also a Property type Tag on a transaction for it to flow to the Tax Planner.

My guess would be that the thought by Quicken is that once you start using the Rental Property module, the assumption is that one would put all rental related Income/Expenses thru that module. IMO that just doesn't make sense. If a transaction is categorized with a Schedule E related Category, it should flow to the Tax Planner - period. This doesn't necessarily mean you can't enter Schedule E related stuff outside of the Rental Property module, you just have to make sure you Tag it with a Property type tag. Therein lies the one exception. If you're entering an Invoice in an Invoice ledger (Business module), you CAN'T tag it with a Property type tag (only a Business type tag is allowed).

Anyhow, to get Quicken to work like it did prior to using the Rental Property module, all Properties must be deleted in the Rental Property module, which necessitates removing the Property type tag from all transactions (using Search/Replace).

Please note the new paragraph (LOL)! The Rental Property module has some nice features for tracking properties, tenants, leases, etc., but I found it sorely lacking on the accounting side. At the time I used it (several years ago), I found it impossible to receive under/overpayments, and a variety of other items (like applying overpayments to subsequent invoices).

Perhaps this has been fixed, but my test on a new dataset didn't seem to indicate that this is the case. Will mess with it a bit more, but for me, the Business module handles this so much better.

[EDIT] - added some whitespace for easier reading - @Ps56k2

Cyclist

I have some concern with respect to my above message being "edited" by @Ps56k2. While it appears that what was done was in fact "added some whitespace for easier reading" (though there were two points where bold font replaced the original text), it brings up the wider question as to whether or not content COULD have been changed - I'm guessing YES. I really wanted to keep this offline, and employed the "Flag" option twice to ask the question: Which users have the ability to edit a post, and can actual content be potentially changed? Since there has been no response, I'll raise the question here. IMO, this is a form of censorship. While the above editing didn't change the content, it appears that the potential is there. It's my prerogative to express my questions/comments as I please (provided I'm not violating any Quicken Community rules). If someone doesn't like the format (of all things), you're free to just ignore OR copy the original and format/edit under your own user name.

Cyclist

I've tried "flagging" my own previous post as "Other" and typing in the comments "What users have availability to edit, and what editing capability do they have?". This has been ignored, so I'm posting to the Quicken Community in hopes that someone (preferrably a moderator) can answer the questions.

Ps56k2

most of us try and read thru various postings - when it becomes hard to read, we try and help the user with some whitespace or other "writing enhancements" to focus on their problem - also sometimes even editing the topic title since folks can't seem to just ask a simple question… as per my (edit) -

If that editing appears as clandestine censorship - then we will not assist you any further -

Cyclist

That's not the point, and you haven't answered the question. Again, who's allowed to edit - would that be any SuperUser? Also, are there any system imposed limits to the editing (e.g. adding whitespace), or anything goes? The point is, if any type of edit is allowed, content could be totally changed, while still appearing as being posted by the original user - you don't see that as a potential problem? If not, perhaps you should go to work for Facebook.

Rocket J Squirrel

Admins, Mods, & Superusers can edit any post's content.

I don't think any of us do it arbitrarily or with malice. The rare times I do it are to correct obvious blunders. A user enters his full name instead of a meaningful thread title. Someone types "now" when they obviously meant "not".

I asked you to break your first post in this thread into paragraphs, and you didn't. I wasn't about to do it for you, even though I could, because then I'd have to read that mess and decide where the breaks should go.

Rocket J Squirrel

[Removed - Off Topic/Disruptive]

Quicken Kristina

Hello All,

This post has strayed from the original topic and therefore deteriorated, become argumentative, and is now closed for further discussion. OP may repost the original issue to receive assistance.

Thank you!