Leaderboard

Ummm.... being, in MA, let's just say "no" - but it does look good from *outside* I'll give you that. Internally it has been a disaster in many and varied ways - so yes it certainly was a prototype for the aca in that sense! I would be much more in favor of regulation (federal or state) if it actually MEANT anything. By which I specifically mean that they monitored the quality of the returns submitted, and clamped down hard and fast on any and every one whose returns are fraudulent or who is even just clueless. AND if they also had a huge PR campaign to educate taxpayers on what to avoid (not to look for). Such as "anyone who won't sign your returns - avoid" or " anyone who claims they can get you a better refund than X - avoid" etc. We've seen posts here (most recently from RitaB) where we KNOW who in our own areas are either incompetent or playing fast-and-loose (or both) and there's no point in reporting them because NOTHING will happen to them. THAT is the part that has to change for ANY regulatory scheme to be anything but a money-maker for government - frequently supported by our professional societies since they all make money selling memberships and CPE classes.

Edsel, you are overstating your position. The IRS is very clear that the recurring use of an error constitutes a incorrect method. When the 3115 rules were liberalized they were intended to deal with these kinds of problems as opposed to filing amendments.

I agree with Tom in this one. Get a POA that covers all the years - and make sure it includes provisions to discuss civil penalties - and call. May take more than one call, if you get a clueless newbie or a real hard-nose on your first try. Find out the situation, get a list of exactly what they want, transcripts, and go from there. And get paid up-front for this one; I never take a back-taxes case without payment up front. I use up the payment and there's more to do - more money, and work ceases until paid (and the check clears).

I respectfully disagree with SaraEA. You should call the IRS and let them know what the situation is. They will probably take a look at his record and see if they have any open years on their books. They will tell you how many years they want you to file. I had two of these types of clients, one they wanted 10 years because they had open items that far back, in the other, they wanted 7 years because they had no earnings records at all for the client. After you get the IRS to tell you what you want, you can buy some time to get the returns prepared and filed. Then you can pull the transcripts and see what the IRS has for W2s and 1099s for the client. Just filing the open years will get the refunds if there are any, but those other years are still open for audit because the statute does not start running until the return is filed. You need to protect your client from that audit exposure. Still love you SaraEA, and I think you are very smart. I would just take a different approach to the situation. Tom Newark, CA

Right, I looked at that too. No-charge PTINs are for new applications and renewals for the 2017 season according to the IRS site. Who hasn't renewed for 2017 yet?! Personally I think that the PTIN should be as it was originally intended, to be as a replacement for our SSNs so that those aren't shown on the returns we prepare. I also think that regulating tax preparers without other credentials (those without JD, EA or CPA) should be handled at the state level as part of states' professional licensing and regulation.

Canopy finally worked.

That is ALWAYS the bugaboo. I have never, ever, had a balance sheet balance out properly without (sometimes a LOT) of massaging beyond the "normal" book-to-tax differences and timing differences. OTOH, it has also led me to unearth some serious errors in what my clients have reported to me, that in a Sch C would never have been noticed. It usually ends up revolving around personal loans made to the company, to get them through a cash-flow hump (or vice-versa), that is later forgotten about.

NATP has self-study classes available; check them out. They have 8-cpe-hour classes on C corps and S corps (plus partnerships). They are basic level classes geared exactly to your situation: sole-prop clients "moving up" in complexity of business structure. They may also have webinars and guided classes; I always prefer self-study. Take a look at their offerings here: https://www.natptax.com/EventsAndEducation/Pages/course-list-self-study.aspx

This is interesting. My first thought is that a cash basis taxpayer has income in the year they received the cash. That would then control the timing of the taxable event. I wonder what code section I am missing that would change my mind? Tom Newark, CA

I was joking but I think I am right. Look at the email address from "contact us" ncpe 20108 Plank Road Zachary , LA , 70791 US Fax: 225-654-8000 Phone: 800-682-2163 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

NCPE's web site is using AOL. It is sooooo slow.

The most practical seminars are NCPE. And by 'practical' I mean useful. But first you need to read the instructions for those business forms to get yourself familiar with the lines. Then try to do a sample return using a P&L and balance sheet from one of your business clients. NEVER skip doing the balance sheet and M-1 on these forms because doing those proves that you have it correct. Also, on 1065 and 1120S you must calculate the owner's basis to see if losses are deductible or not. 1065s can have plenty of debt basis but 1120S... well I don't like to have any debt basis because it's too complicated. If my sole shareholders tell me they loaned money to their S corp, I just show it as a capital contribution to make my life simple. You have a lot to learn.

Check out NATP; I think they have webinars on those topics

I agree with jlkcpa . There is a caveat here and I do not think it is political as basically it is just a general government comment. The congress (house) has a bill regulating state income taxes (taxability to people working in multiple states, etc.) which would be somewhat what congress might do by having the various states require credentialing for preparers, etc. So basically the "feds" would be telling the states how to write their tax law, etc. --- am I old fashioned but why should the feds have that power over the states IF it is the states business, etc???? The other part of credentialing (which I do think is important for our industry) is that will it actually be for the betterment of the industry and US? or just another way for the state government to raise money (fees, testing, etc.) for their own use. Again, not political, just economics as I see it.