Leaderboard

But far better to be dead wrong here, where it costs us nothing, than to give wrong advice to a client. I've seen a few conversations on this forum where I was on the wrong side (Politics Forum Exempted), and avoided a mistake or two when it came time to deal with the situation with a client.

Can we please scale back the assumptions in this thread? They do not make for good client service. Start with "the" attorney--we don't even know whether it was "her" attorney. If no kids, maybe they made their own amicable agreement and simply asked one attorney to get it through the court. Otherwise, what did the engagement letter say? Negotiating a settlement is one thing, but it gets expensive fast if you ask the lawyer to actually transfer title and clear credit accounts. Which might not even be possible at all. Maybe the lawyer advised selling the car, but the client agreed to keep it in exchange for other concessions. What does "husband was responsible for making the payments on the loan" in the original post mean? How exactly is that stated in the divorce decree? If he surrendered the collateral or compromised the debt, that might have been a legitimate out. All this is beyond the scope of our own engagement letter anyway. So let's focus on the tax issues. Like, the 1099-C. Was it even correct? Is there reasonable cause to abate penalties? Do we need an installment plan or other collections action?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p_4iHNpjRbM

If you miss open enrollment, you have to wait until the next open enrollment, just like with your employer insurance. So if you decide you'll risk it in march and have that heart attack in April, you're SOL until the next open enrollment for January of the next year.

I've never used more than one vehicle at a time ---- tried once but got to tired ---- drove one a block --- ran back for the other --- drove it two blocks --- ran back for the other and so on -------after running for eight blocks, I just wore out ----- Just learned to use smiley faces and couldn't resist...

Hello Fellow Discussion Board Members, I am reposting my experiences and recommendations concerning ATX 2013. Systems & Hardware: The following information is the results of my experience for 2012 and my testing of 2013. I will not go into detailed explanations. You may accept my information or ignore it. I will not spend time trying to convince the die hard "old system works and I won't replace it" group any further than the information I am posting. My system recommendations: Operating System - Windows 7 PRO only. No other. Make the move from Win XP, despite any stubbornness you have about not changing. Get over it. It is a dinosaur and will not be supported by Microsoft after spring 2014. Hardware is inexpensive. If your peripherals do not run on WIN 7, replace them. Printers and scanners are cheap. Get over your fondness of the old stuff. 64Bit is nice, but will not give a substantial boost in speed to ATX2013. 64Bit will improve many other programs. Processor speed of 2.6 or higher (actually as low as 2.1 should function if you are a standalone or peer to peer) will be adequate for ATX 2013. 4GB of RAM is sufficient. Any above that will not give increased performance of ATX 2013. If you are using a dedicated server - Server 2008 64Bit (there are several versions) or newer. If your system will support 64Bit, up to 16GB of RAM in the server. The recommended list from ATX will probably be useful for ATX2014. Plan your upgrades now so any learning curve for new operating systems can be done before season. Decisions about software for tax year 2013: After much research, testing and observation, here is what I have to share. The NDA that I signed with CCH prevents me from saying much of what I would like to, so here is the scoop The firm I work for and myself at my private practice are staying with ATX for 2013. This was decided after dozens of hours of trial and research. I have observed that many of the problems that existed for 2012 should not be issues in 2013. The development team has been working very hard to bring a workable product to the table for 2013. Anyone wishing more info, please send me a PM.

I tend to use snoopes.com a lot but found a piece of information I'd like to share. Basically I'm seeing this as taking snoopes with a "grain of salt": SNOPES EXPOSED Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama! In our Search for the truth...department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions. I went to Snopes to check this out and they said it was false and there were no such dockets so I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what? Yep you got it. Snopes lied. http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/kagan.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kagan.asp Every one of those dockets are there. So Here is what I wrote Snopes: Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets: The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Court's website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to.. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking. Thank You, I hope you will be much more truthful in the future. Again, just as an FYI.

Mr. Pencil, The original post --- I did believe as I DID NOT go back to check what I had originally placed in my database, from when I placed it (several years ago) and as stated "I did the basic search and believe (can't swear as memory not there) that snopes basically stated 'no dockets there between the two' --- at the time, I found there were dockets listed and fully believe the article was wrong when it stated there were no dockets ---- hence I was discrediting snopes outright - not rumor mongering -- stating what I believed FROM WHEN I originally found the article (again, several years ago) and posted it here as fact - again, what I believed - till you showed me I was incorrect (based on what snopes says today at those links). Again, not what I remembered seeing but what is there today -- hence my comments about not relying on one source to confirm facts. As to the Soros comment, I again believe based on a myriad of "impressions" (AGAIN not individually confirmed, in life, people either think good of you or not (from impressions and gleanings of knowledge) many times that can change or be changed by better/different impressions/gleanings, etc. The Soros impression (of mine) is not all good --- not all bad either --- just mine as from my impressions, I do not think he has the best interests for the U.S. and it's people at the forefront of what he does. As Eric stated too, snopes has a good track record and is looked at by many (including me) to separate myth for fact. I just don't use it for politics anymore. No, I haven't checked to see if SOROS has given money or support to snopes, that part was in the past and I don't really care __ but I believed that since I was incorrect on the Obama/Kagan part that I should state -- that I haven't confirmed the SOROS impression either. When I read your reply, I went back and checked the links, etc. and found what you stated (snopes said WMD had retracted, etc.). In my reply, I stated I hadn't checked the Soros comment (verified it) as I tried to explain not just for the Soros comment, but for the posting in general that WHEN originally done (again, several years ago), it was my belief; now after your questioning and comments, it shows otherwise AND I'm agreeing. HOWEVER the point still being that --- more than one source should be checked to assure yourself of information. Sorry to confuse you, that is far from my intention --- as a matter of fact, that's where I "fall down" a lot --- trying to explain myself and all the different ways I think/see things/ look at information, etc. Being a two finger type-er makes it even harder as my mind can be one place but my fingers haven't caught up yet. Eric I pretty much agree with your comments, especially about the discrediting ways, etc. (now I'm not perfect and no party is BUT that's why I'm a registered Repub --- vote whoever is best but definitely leaning toward the conservative repub side). I like those who give sources, not just (impressions) --- again, hence my belief NOW about checking multiple sources (not like I was - even a year ago).

Consider taking "car" out of the question and replacing it with "house", "mortgage", etc. It lends a different perspective. Most are correct here in understanding that a divorce decree, etc. (basically a contract of dissolution) might be enforceable between the parties but would probably need to -- go back to court -- for sanctions, enforcement. However, the decree has no bearing, "weight" on the IRS aspect as far as a 1099 C (a forgiveness/right down, etc. from one entity to another) - it is a total and distinct occurrence. By the way --- please - DON'T tell the attorney -- or your tax/accounting client how to handle (who's responsible, why didn't they do this, etc.) "legal" matters (or even allude to this type of information). I have knowledge of Bar Associations taking many type of professionals to task (practicing law without a license) for similar things. As noted in another post discussion here --- even if right and just an innocent opinion --- can be costly to defend against --- should they raise this question.

If both spouses received a 1099-C for the same amount, is there a mechanism to "nominee" half of it to the other? The IRS should not be collecting tax on the same amount twice? Am not at the office, and am on the go today, but will be looking this up on Monday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzLVgrK8zlE&feature=player_embedded

I agree with Taxed. Windows 8 is very similar to Windows 7. It might not feel that way because of the changes to the interface, but at it's core, it's pretty much all incremental improvements. External device drivers (printers/scanners) are most likely going to be your biggest concern. If you can get used to a Start Screen instead of a Start Menu, then you're at least 80% of the way to being totally comfortable with Windows 8.1. As far as software compatibility goes (besides drivers), I can't imagine that there would be issues for ATX software, but you never know I guess. Depending on the company, what OS they officially support might be just as important as what actually works. Software might work just fine with a particular version of Windows, but if it's not "officially" supported by the company, it's too easy for tech support to just say "sorry, you're on your own" EDIT: As far as going back to Windows 7 from 8, I don't know if it's possible, but if it is, I'd be scared about it being a flaky process. That's just my nerd intuition, though, nothing scientific.

Just my opinion since i don't use ATX anymore. Mr. Mohan try with Win 8.1 first and see if it works or not and if it does not then decide to downgrade. I use Drake and it works with 8.1 just fine, though they recommend Win 7 and below. Their sales guy told me that most of them still use XP. I have XP and Win 7 and I tried it on a laptop with 8.1 from my son. If you have printer and scanner drivers for 8.1 you are good to go. That is usually the limiting factor.

That is not correct. The divorce settlement is an agreement between the two spouses. It is not binding on the IRS or any other third party. We have no information as to whether the attorney tried to get the loan released, but the lender is certainly not required to do so and typically would not without additional security or fees. So suing the attorney is a long shot, and can't even be done until she tries to mitigate the damage in other ways like filing for innocent spouse. Though no guarantee of success, innocent spouse would be easy and cheap to claim based on fairness and maybe lack of knowledge. But one of the requirements is that she not benefit from the loan. That could be hard to show since the car was part of the property division, especially if she used itr during or after the marriage. At least she must resolve the problem that she was in fact relieved of a legal debt. Meanwhile she can probably get a settlement adjustment or other judgement against him. But that would mean a private investigator would have to find him to serve papers, and she might be better off if he stayed out of her life.

In our case, he didn't quite laugh. He did say that the IRS is not interested in what the divorce papers say. IRS law overrides civil law. They both signed the tax return so they are each liable for the entire amount of the tax owed. Besides that, we have community state laws to deal with.

I smiled. Reminded me of last night when our kitty went downstairs to go potty. She made the most pathetic howling sound; as though someone was hurting her. We keep a night light on down there for her. I asked my husband if he thought her light has burned out. He said "No"! Well, guess what, I went to check and that is exactly what it was. Put in a new bulb and not another peep. So, who says animals are dumb? Our Annie is learning to "talk"!

Loved this video, but then had to view some of other related videos. Took me 15 minutes to leave the site!