Unclaimed rental depreciation-Form 3115
I can't find Form 3115 in Pro-Series??
My client has nine years of depreciation on a rental that she hasn't claimed so I'd like to claim it all this year. Does anyone have experience doing this in ProSeries?
I can't find Form 3115 in Pro-Series??
My client has nine years of depreciation on a rental that she hasn't claimed so I'd like to claim it all this year. Does anyone have experience doing this in ProSeries?

As you've already discovered, Form 3115 isn't included in ProSeries. You'll have to download Form 3115 from irs.gov and prepare it separately. You can still efile the return by using Form 8453 and checking the Form 3115 box when you mail the Form 8453 after the return has been accepted. Read the instructions for Form 3115, though, you'll also have to mail a copy of the Form 3115 to the IRS National Office. The address is in the Form 3115 instructions.
Quickfinder, on page 10-20, provides an example of exactly what you're trying to accomplish. Of course, if you don't have a copy of Quickfinder, that information doesn't do you much good. It's a little long for me to try to transcribe here, and it's probably a copyright violation to transcribe it anyway. The gist of it is that on the 2008 Schedule E you'll enter a negative Section 481(a) adjustment to recoup the unclaimed depreciation from prior years, and you'll claim the 2008 depreciation in normal fashion on Form 4562.
(If you don't have Quickfinder or The Taxbook, buy one or both of them today. They're well worth the cost. I order both every year, but you won't go wrong with either one if you only want to purchase one.)

Dittos on the Quickfinder or TaxBook. Absolutely essential, and not all that expensive.
Happy Tax,
Thank you so much ... you saved me hours of research and frustration!
Aisha
Hey guys - I'm dying to know if Form 3115 worked for this exact purpose. The guys at Taxalmanac haven't helped me much with no specifics. I'm trying toi figure out how to use that form - instead of an amended method. Is missed depr. a method of "non-depr. to depr" or " making a late depreciation method?" The form gets filled out differently based uppon the answer
You can only do this in the year of sale, not just any old year. See Rev Proc 2004-11.
I filed Form 3115 for a client a few years ago (not the year of sale) and it did work. She sold the condo last year and I recaptured the depreciation.

In spite of Eileens' success (we do not know the specifics) I do not agree that failure to take depreciation is a "change in accounting method".
There is no "accounting method" that advocates the omission of depreciation.
When I have run into this I have minimized the impact by being more liberal on the land value and amending the previous three years
The following statement does appear on the form, however, that makes me wonder if the IRS is more liberal then what one may imagine:
6 If the property is not currently treated as depreciable or amortizable property, attach a statement of the facts supporting the proposed change to depreciate or amortize the property.
I would be curious to hear more details from Eileen...and I think that I would attempt to do this...nothing ventured, nothing gained
It might have worked because nobody at the Service caught it, which wouldn't be surprising considering how experienced they all are at the Service.
My stating "only in the year of sale" is merely the rules, according to the Rev Proc. That doesn't mean that everybody understands the rules.

James, your quote seems to apply to converted property, such as, "My son lived in the house until he could buy one of his own, then we started renting it out."
Charlotte...My excerpt was from the 3115 instructions. Under the scenario you are describing, filing a 3115 would not be necessary because the IRS doesn't recognize related party rentals..at least those that do not end up break-even or better.
I posted my last post in partial answer to Eileen and because I tend to lean towards Accountant Man's feelings.
If the IRS is so easily reversing their "allowed or allowable" position...why bother having it in the first place?