QUOTE (Mike Preston @ Mar 26 2007, 12:27 PM) 
Did anybody notice that our good friends at EP:EO seem so have won the day. Pub 560 for 2006 has language that is startlingly clear and completely consistent with the Kyle Brown letter, but totally inconsistent with prior years' Pub. 560's (and, of course, the law). Here is the language from 2006 (for preparing 2006 tax returns):
"For the preceding year, received compensation from you of more than $95,000 (if the preceding year is 2005, $100,000 if the preceding year is 2006 or 2007) and, if you so choose, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation."
To remind everybody, this is what the 2005 version stated (for preparing 2005 tax returns):
"For the preceding year, received compensation from you of more than $95,000 and, if you so choose, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation. This $95,000 amount increases to $100,000 in 2006."
Now isn't that just peachy?
"For the preceding year, received compensation from you of more than $95,000 (if the preceding year is 2005, $100,000 if the preceding year is 2006 or 2007) and, if you so choose, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation."
To remind everybody, this is what the 2005 version stated (for preparing 2005 tax returns):
"For the preceding year, received compensation from you of more than $95,000 and, if you so choose, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation. This $95,000 amount increases to $100,000 in 2006."
Now isn't that just peachy?
Since I missed Mike Preston's message from March 26th concerning the wording change in the 2006 version of Publication 560 (probably due to the fact that it was buried at the bottom of eight pages of prior messages), I thought that I would reprint it in a new topic in order to make it a little more obvious. I was getting ready to post a similar message when I discovered that Mike had, of course, beat me to the punch by six weeks.