Leaderboard

A couple of days ago my daughter informed me she & her hubby didn't file in '05 & '06. The IRS assessed them a bunch of bucks (computed tax on their income with no withholding or dependent exemptions). She wanted me to 'fix it, daddy'. Even though they're grown & gone I still love it when every once in awhile I once again get to be a hero for my kids! [FWIW--they still owe some bucks but it is less than half what the IRS claimed.] Since I've replaced my computer several times since those ancient days, I had to reload the '05 & '06 software. Wow. What a difference from today's. It was much faster and much sleeker. I remembered why I once loved using ATX. As is often the case, in our drive for 'new & improved' we humanoids meet only the first half that goal. And for some reason we call it 'progress'. Go figure.

I think there may be more here than meets the eye. While it is entirely possible this individual wants to have it both ways (alas, many people, clergy and non, are constantly looking for ways to game the system for their personal financial gain) it is also possible there is another way of looking at it. As you know, opting out only affects SECA tax payments (and associated benefits) on income related to performing clergy services. However, these clergy taxpayers must still pay into FICA/SECA on their secular earnings before, during and after their clergy service and are still entitled to receive SS benefits based on those secular earnings (assuming they have the requisite number of credits and meet other qualifying criteria). Further, the spouse may have paid in and therefore, might also have earned legitimate benefits. It may be that this individual is merely asking, "If I opt out on my clergy earnings, will I still get the benefits that I previously earned ... or do I lose everything?" or perhaps, "I am bi-vocational and therefore am paying in now on my secular earnings. Will those benefits be forfeited if I opt out on my clergy income?" or maybe, "Will the benefits my spouse has earned be lost?" These are all entirely legitimate concerns. Further, clergy taxpayers are no more tax experts than any of our other clients. They are simply looking to us for answers to the questions that bewilder them. In other words, (s)he might not be trying to scam the system, (s)he may just be trying to get a handle on something that is pretty befuddling. My primary gig is doing consulting work for churches and other religious non-profits. As a result, I do a ton of tax work with clergy (fwiw, I am one myself--I've been in pastoral ministry for more than 35 years). A comment I often hear is, "I am fundamentally opposed to receiving a government benefit for my work in the church, but at the same time, I don't want to lose those benefits that I previously earned before I entered the ministry." IMO that is a valid concern about an issue with which the person is not well-acquainted. Let's be honest--this topic (opting out) is not a particularly easy concept to understand. That's why we get to charge the big bucks to know it/explain it With all my clients, clergy and non-clergy alike, my job is to make them aware of the facts and the implications of those facts in order to empower them to make an informed decision.

May 16, 2015 You have heard the sad statistics: By one estimate, each year 3.4 percent of married Americans experience a divorce. Many if not most of them blunder into it without advance detailed consideration of how divorce will impact their finances. Even when couples anticipate an “amicable” break-up, the situation can deteriorate quickly, and one party to the divorce may wind up on the short end of the stick. The professionals at HD Vest offer the following short list of preparatory steps you or your clients can take to ensure that the ultimate outcome is as equitable and manageable as possible: 1) Familiarize yourself with the applicable state’s divorce law. Different states have different approaches to property and liability ownership. Your clients’ attorneys are the professionals, of course, but it’s essential to know the basics, and better to have a deeper grasp. 2) Run a credit report. This gives your client a head’s up about any possible unknown debts their spouse has incurred without your client’s knowledge. 3) Take an inventory of tangible and financial possessions. This will need to be done eventually anyway, but the sooner the better in case the process leads to any surprises, such as long-dormant retirement plan or taxable asset accounts. 4) Secure the most recent statements for all accounts, and appraisals for tangible property with any potentially significant value. One less obvious benefit to the appraisals is to smooth out the process of dividing possessions with sentimental value to one party that might also be thought to have economic value, but actually do not. 5) Establish individual banking, investment, and credit card accounts in your client’s name, to be ready for the separation of assets. 6) Create a pre- and post-divorce budget. Assuming the couple isn’t operating under an up-to-date budget, creating a new, accurate one will establish the foundation for a prospective post-divorce budget that might include new expense categories, such as child care. Although the resulting picture might indicate that tightly restrained spending may be in your client’s short-term future, the knowledge of what to expect — and that it will be survivable — can take some of the emotional strain out of the upcoming divorce process.

Client must go to bank with wrong account number and check and see what they did with the money.Happens a couple times a year with my clients takes about six weeks to receive the check.

If you put it on line 73 as an other tax payment, you can avoid getting an IRS notice saying they corrected your tax payments. Voice of experience here.

You'd also think with the increase in price, You'd still hear that saber tiger roar................. Must be audio is very costly added to software..

Quicken '98 and QuickBooks 2001 were the best versions of those two programs. After that they added useless feature after useless feature, without adding much of any really new functionality, and without fixing persistent bugs from year to year. "New and Improved!" just means it's new, they took out some good stuff, and the improvement is that it now *must* be updated every few years since support stops. Grrr.

I agree that speed of data entry is not the only factor to consider, but surely it should be one factor, and an important one at that as its one of the few variables we have any control over. Not only is the entry process quicker, Drake doesn't require that all the docs be sorted into some particular order to achieve any kind of efficiency. The ability to bounce almost instantaneously from Sch A to Sch C to W2 to whatever and then back to point A, is really nice. Another thing that sets Drake apart: when I started with Sabre back in the olden days, I paid about 25% of what ATX now costs. I got essentially what I'm getting now with Max (fed/state/municipal tax prep software and their Zillion Forms or whatever they called it). In the time they have quadrupled their price Drake has had one price increase...of $100. The pure efficiency of the Drake software is impressive. Opening the software, opening a file, zipping around the program, doing the tax computations all happen at speeds that leave ATX sitting in the dust. It is not without its drawbacks, but for me, when I stacked them up side by side, the clear winner was Drake. As I mentioned in my earlier post, a return that 4 or 5 years ago took an hour now takes an hour and a half. My fees haven't gone up 50%! The net effect is that I'm making 1/3 less per hour now than I was five years ago.. Why did that happen? I think there are three reasons: 1) the software is created by programmers (rather than preparers) and suffers from the bloat that seems to be inherent in programmer driven environments, 2) CCH chose to change the programming language several years ago (gee, wasn't that fun?!?), and 3) their apparently conscious decision to make the data entry process increasingly complicated (again, likely a programmer driven mod). It all adds up to me saying a reluctant goodby to a software package I used to love using.

​Deep sigh. What we are talking about is not a fundamental spiritual belief. We are discussing the meaning of a section of tax law. I do share your belief in absolutes and also share your concern that society is blurring those lines. I applaud you for your concern for and commitment to being absolutely faithful to immutable scriptural/spiritual truth--a commitment I share. But this ain't that! In this instance, you are (IMO arbitrarily) placing a much higher burden on the taxpayer than does the IRS. The government does not ask for a declaration that the person is fundamentally opposed to accepting ANY government benefit. They ask only for a declaration that the person is fundamentally opposed to accepting a government sponsored benefit that is linked to their service as a clergy person. Benefits not linked to that service are NOT included in the declaration. Here is the actual statement that the clergy person must certify on Form 4361 (highlights are mine): I certify that I am conscientiously opposed to, or because of my religious principles I am opposed to, the acceptance (for services I perform as a minister, member of a religious order not under a vow of poverty, or Christian Science practitioner) of any public insurance that makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement; or that makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care. (Public insurance includes insurance systems established by the Social Security Act.) I certify that as a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church or a member of a religious order not under a vow of poverty, I have informed the ordaining, commissioning, or licensing body of my church or order that I am conscientiously opposed to, or because of religious principles I am opposed to, the acceptance (for services I perform as a minister or as a member of a religious order) of any public insurance that makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement; or that makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care, including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act. I certify that I have never filed Form 2031 to revoke a previous exemption from social security coverage on earnings as a minister, member of a religious order not under a vow of poverty, or Christian Science practitioner. I request to be exempted from paying self-employment tax on my earnings from services as a minister, member of a religious order not under a vow of poverty, or Christian Science practitioner, under section 1402(e) of the Internal Revenue Code. I understand that the exemption, if granted, will apply only to these earnings. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this application and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct. There is nothing there about forever swearing off any and all public insurance benefits--only those that are directly associated with clergy service. Further, there is a clear acknowledgement that the applicant must continue to pay into the public insurance system (via FICA or SECA tax) on non-clergy earnings. The reason for that is that it is the clear intention of the underlying law that the exemption is restricted only to those benefits directly associated with clergy earnings/activities, and that secular earnings are still subject to tax, and that the person is not voluntarily forfeiting any benefits so-earned. Well garsh. This has gotten to be a rather long thread and has deviated somewhat from its original intent. I do enjoy a spirited debate, but I don't think I have anything further useful to add. Therefore, I'll not be commenting on it any further.

He probably recognizes that once you switch to Drake you're very unlikely to come back. The more you learn about Drake the less likely you are to settle for an inferior product. Superior performance eventually wins out. And even though there's already a price differential that favors Drake, I suspect the pricing margin will widen even more as time goes on.

Going back to my OP: I just informed my rep that I'm switching to Drake next season for the reasons stated above. He replied that he was sorry to see me go but completely understood my reasoning. I was somewhat surprised by his understanding response and the tacit agreement it implied. You'd think with all the grief they've caught over the past couple years CCH would try to do something about speed/bloat issues.

Jack, with all due respect, I think you are still missing the point. I respect your opinion, but your view does not take into account a complete perspective of the law at question. I agree that 'yes' must be yes and 'no' must be no. That is not at issue. What is at issue is what we are saying yes or no to. It is not what you seem to think it is. If it were, I would agree with your point ... but it is not. I would reiterate what others have said: when they opt out, Form 4361 does NOT require that clergy persons certify they are fundamentally opposed to receiving ANY/ALL guvment benefits. What they must certify is that they have a deeply held religious conviction (i.e., a fundamental belief) that it is not appropriate to receive a government benefit that is exclusively related to their service as a clergy person. The underlying rationale is that they do not think it is appropriate for the government to compensate them (even in an indirect way through a future insurance benefit) for their clergy service. To recap, this has nothing to do with whether they can accept any government benefit. It is based exclusively on whether a clergy person can (in good conscience) accept a government benefit that is directly related to performing a clergy service. That is a huge distinction. And that is the ONLY thing they are opting out of.

I absolutely LOVED that tiger roar!

​This is so true. I have used Quicken forever. It used to be flawless. I am totally frustrated with 2010. Wish I could go back, but I will probably certainly never go forward. WAY too much crammed into a simple usable program.

. Thank you, Jerry.

I'm sure no one has had this happen before but I thought I would check. We prepared client's tax return and emailed it to him on 4/15. He made some changes that resulted in additional taxes. We filed an extension and he paid his recalculated amount owed with the 1040-V form and mailed it in. I'm debating whether to show the amount on the 1040 as paid with the extension. I know the IRS will be confused with this one. I don't know where else I should report the payment. Any ideas? Thanks.

Yeah, who cares about speed when you're selling your time? Data entry speed is a tiny part of the equation. (Anybody can type fast). Startup, backup, updates, macros, and maneuvering around in the program all form the total picture. It's obvious to me that you never mastered Drake's capabilities.

If the bank received the deposit into an account that did not have the taxpayer's name on it, it is a bank issue. Good luck getting the bank to correct their mistake.

Pacun, Your client would be able to use his HSA in either case for his child's qualified medical expenses whether or not the child was claimed as his dependent. See Pub 969 and pay attention to the "TIP" under the explanation of Qualified Medical Expenses.

Nothing to fix. The bank should refuse the deposit. The IRS will then sit on the refund 2-4 weeks and mail the taxpayer a check.

Yes, I had a client do this and it took a while for the IRS to track down the payment when I made the mistake of treating it like an extension payment.

I would show it - especially if he owes more taxes. As long as it was all applied to the correct year, if the total comes out they should be OK. YMMV.