Leaderboard

Prayers, Cathy. But, this year is a labyrinth for everyone. I have PE clients who must be in "entertainment" unless they split their business activities (and I'm not going to redo their 2018 accounting now during tax season) who are going to be furious, because they are over the income thresholds. Especially bad when I prepare only the biz returns, and their personal preparer tells them I did it wrong and wants the activities split. I'm putting off finishing PE returns but need to get started to meet the march deadlines; but, the thought of preparing the K-1s for the QBID scares me. And, people's lower withholding... And, mid-2018 CT passed a retroactive law that PEs pay ES at the company level. I had trouble getting that through biz owners' heads. And, the higher the biz income, the less likely they were to believe me and to send in the vouchers with checks. People came in early, so I've been backlogged for weeks. But, now they're getting more tax documents in the mail. And, asking about new things to me, such as the Code Section 83(b) election, causing me more research. And, prior year returns. I have a lot of dumb days during tax season, but this year I feel like an idiot much too early! Can we all sit down for some strong drink in April -- and, again in October? Please!

This is my 43rd year preparing tax returns and the worst year, to say the least! I have read conflicting things about the Extenders bill and thought it was all set and I was just waiting on directions from IRS as where to show the extended items that were needed on my clients returns. When researching IRS's website on the Extenders items, I get dizzy as it's click here, now here,...a couple more times then find myself at square one which was my original research quary. QBI....Am I the only one to admit that I feel brain dead when trying to decipher the regulations that keep on changing? I am literally at a complete loss on the whole issue! Ok.....it's out! There is an idiot amongst you! I feel better now! Maybe you can now see how intelligent you are and will have a wonderful day! Keep me in your thoughts and prayers (pleeeeeze)! Take care, Cathy

This year will definitely be a challenge at many levels. I am sure we will all have moments when we suddenly realize we didn't know what we thought we did.

When a dependentless couple comes in my office I want to throw a five minute party. True story, although I made up a word there.

After being marked for life with terror at the NATP conferences, I am asking for anything with the child's name and the parent's address. I too, know all of my clients personally. The ones having babies now are the ones I "raised" in my office for the most part. But I still get something. Anything. Child care reports, report cards, doctor records, even the 1095's have the kids' names and the parents' addresses on them. NOTHING proves beyond a doubt that the child laid his head on a pillow under that roof for over half the year. NOTHING. It has not been awkward for me at all. I get something to scan in their file and charge them extra for doing it. My new $600 scanner is the bomb, by the way. Canon DR C-240. @RitaB AmIright?

Obtain knowledge. Once you understand the limitations of AV "protection", and the motivation of the paid AV providers, you will understand why so many installation processes include a suggestion to disable your AV software during the installation. The only real protection is good backups, and making sure your fingers remain under control (safe hex). No software can control your fingers, so no software can protect you 100%. Paid AV offers no extra safety than free AV, and by paying for AV, we are perpetuating the "medicine show" business. At least the old medicine show hawkers products (which did not kill you) would give you a buzz... Personally, I say those who rely on AV products are at more risk, since they incorrectly believe their AV software allows them to not worry about what they click or open.

Bumping this topic specifically to address the ongoing mentions of Drake or other software that continue to appear in the replies to general tax questions or ATX questions. @Eric Eric is too nice to us, and some here need to know that his original post was in response to some complaints that we've received about these posts. When posting a reply to a current ATX user seeking help, please remember that it is not helpful to that member to post about how any others' vendor software handles an issue better, fast, easier, or has great tech support.

Of course you are right. Only I copy and put the "evidence" in a manila folder and don't charge more because in the poor South they'll leave you over twenty bucks. I know this because they'll sell Grandma for fifteen. Seriously, I've been very diligent with new clients for years. Existing clients not so much. I'm doing better, and apologizing for asking them for evidence that this kid I see with them on FaceBook everyday is really theirs, but I have no problem telling them why I'm doing it. I still think there's more to that NATP story than we know. Also, I just wish they'd push DIY a little more. /s

Another case of wasted time. A certain AV vendor's daily updates was marking one of my downloads as nefarious. Of course, this is another "false positive', or "income generator" issue. (False positives are a known issue, which no one addresses, as it makes the AV vendor multiples of income compared to actually being correct...). To resolve the issue, I tried the "basics" (which show how bad the AV "security" really is, since all they are doing is making wild guesses). Change the case of a few letters in the program code, more a few code blocks around, and so on. No good. I then individually tested each file, no problems. Thus, the only problem is when compiled into a setup exe. OK, I have seen this before... think. So I tried something new, not using compression in the setup creation. TA DA. The AV vendor has forgotten how to unzip files, as the files not zipped are fine, but when zipped, are reported as nefarious. So for today, my download has to be 4x as large as normal, because of an accidental or on purpose mistake bu a major AV vendor. Anyone paying separately for AV is paying too much...

It will come down to the one who can prove the number of nights spent at their home. That will be the only tiebreaker. Whoever has the best paper trail for nights the child slept in their home will get to claim the child. Support is meaningless, as is AGI in this scenario. Custody means the child spent more than 1/2 of the year under that roof. And the IRS could care less what the divorce decree says. Tom Modesto, CA

The only problem I've had in 25 years of using Eset AV is it blocking successful downloads of QB installers. I know now to temporarily disable it whenever I have to download QB.

Accept there is nothing perfect, and prepare, plan for, and practice recovery/survival. That time/money is well spent IMHO. This from someone who, like others, has had to call 911 and be told (rightfully so) no one is coming (natural disaster triage priorities, not a complaint!)...

I knew your opinion already. Thanks and I'm not wasting time on anything but this post right here. Back to work.

Be very very careful and limit your potential risk as much as possible !

My previous post was censured. Don't waste your time waiting. Congress will not touch this before 2020. See if this stays....

Cathy, you are completely normal. I'm waiting on the Extenders, too, especially Tuition and Fees Deduction. Hope it happens.

Here are a few items that might help someone: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f886he.pdf https://www.eitc.irs.gov/eitc/files/downloads/f886-h-hoh.pdf https://www.eitc.irs.gov/eitc/files/downloads/f886-h-dep.pdf

Margaret, I have several of these clients who I have watched their children grow up. For these folks, I check the boxes on the 8867 appropriately and at the bottom, I choose that I did not rely on any documents but made notes in the file. Those notes are usually a short blurb about the client/accountant relationship that has existed for x number of years with continuity with claiming the dependents. Also, I note the previous files can be reviewed for consistency. Don't know if this helps or not.

Simply put, if the child is not the boyfriend's child, NO.

I found a simple one at silvercreekteam.com. I like that the client has to sign and date it although I rarely see most of my clients. I suppose selecting one or two of the suggested documents for the file would then suffice. It just feels weird to me.

The beauty of mileage is that the depreciation component does not go away after the vehicle is fully depreciated. So you can end up getting more depreciation than the car cost, but for fixed assets purposes, the net value does not go below zero. LOOPHOLE!

Does anyone already have and be willing to share a prepared list of questions to ask and document answers (Form 8867 Part 1 #3 Interview the taxpayer, ask questions and document the taxpayer's responses...) for 8867? The clients that I have with children have been known to me since before children were born and I feel weird asking whether the kids live with them, for example. Maybe if I had a standard page of questions it wouldn't be so awkward. I really hate this part...

The parent with whom the child lived over half the year (where the child laid his head) wins the head of household filing status. If the divorce papers say they alternate claiming the child, and one parent is the primary custodial parent, that parent signs the 8332 giving ONLY the exemption to the non-custodial parent. HOH wins EIC and dependent care credit while the "exemption" wins the CTC. I always get an 8332, and if I can get one signed for "every other year" or "every odd (even) year" or "EVERY FOLLOWING year" I do. Whatever the initial papers designate.

The holding period begins at the date the stock is received rather than when the restrictions come off. So your client can sell the stock as soon as the restrictions come off and get long-term capital gain treatment.

So what is an innocent tax preparer to do? Or anyone for that matter.

Not today, but all have had issues, and will continue to. Any AV software which guesses (most call it heuristics, as few would pay for "guesses") will have false positives. If I can figure out how easy it is to fool AV software, it is reasonable to believe those who spend their full time on the issue (the baddies) can easily fool AV software long enough to make their money. While it falls mostly on deaf ears, relying on AV software is a fools gambit. At least some experts in the field say using AV software is less safe, as it encourages users to be less vigilant about practicing safe hex.

I hope it doesn't happen. Enough changes already. Extenders are a joke. Make it the law, pass it with enough time to let IRS and software companies get it done. We don't need one year laws.

Thanks, Possi and Rita. 'Marked for life with terror' is what I don't want but guess I'm already there hence my original post. And I have been apologizing even though it isn't my fault. I just feel it's rude to my clients and resent that IRS trusts me so little. I used to answer the questions honestly on the form but not to excess and didn't really keep documents. Then we had to submit the 8867 instead of just having it in our files. So, documents. I just am so uncertain as to what are 'adequate' questions to ask. As most of my clients are never seen, I was hoping to attach a questionnaire for them to answer and would keep that in my files. That's why I asked if anyone had something like that already. I will do something soon although I think there are only 2-3 more folks with children. Most clients are older than that by now.

EricF hit this straight on. Also, as cbslee said it too.

TTB has a handy page covering the due diligence areas. I don't get too worried about my clients that's I've known for ages, seen the birth announcements, had the kids in my office, don't see any signs of a divorce, etc. I ask if everyone's still living at the same address, that kind of thing.

The PTIN registration site is a very good resource. It also lists all CPE credit that the IRS has received under your PTIN. I was just in there a couple months ago when I was renewing my EA license to check and make sure I had all the hours correct on my renewal. One of the few things the IRS has made fairly painless and is actually useful. Tom Modesto, CA

I don;'t have enough money for them to hear me. Money talks, you know....

https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/ptin-top-faq-5 It's the first question so must be common.

There are many posts on the official board about what should and shouldn't be included on lines 4a and 4b, including ATX's defense of their handling. I've been too lazy to try to figure out who is right until I run into a problem, but it's probably a lot faster to search the board than to get an answer from support.

Yes, you can code a Box 7, 1099-MISC to, among others, Schedule C, Other Income (no SE tax), and Other Income (SE tax). For nonemployee compensation without a Schedule C, I use Other Income (SE tax) and it goes to Sch SE as well as Line 21.

Shhhhhhhhhhh…….they will hear you. Tom Modesto, CA

You are no doubt completing Sch SE for these self-employed folks whose income you entered on Line 21, right? At first I thought, "Well, that is going from the frying pan to the fire," but then I was ok. I'm posting anyway because people are leaving me alone and I don't want to work.

Sole proprietor is kinda like a pass through entity. My tax practice has its own EIN, but reports on my 1040. Kinda like a passthrough entity. Tom Modesto, CA

Still have to fill it in, because QBL is carried forward and reduces future QBI at the 1040 level.

Maybe from the Equifax hack?

I have clients who had a fake return filed under their SS#s one year, got IP PINs the next year, and that return rejected because one had already been filed. Apparently that year this happened fairly often not because of a hack, but because the thieves knew enough about the taxpayers to answer the questions and get a new number. They must have been getting credit reports on the victims and therefore knew prior addresses, what bank had their mortgage, etc. The IRS temporarily shut down the online IP PIN website after enough of these events happened, so I'm wondering what is different now. That said, refund ID theft has diminished a lot thanks to the security summit, which shares info quickly, multiple arrests, and some of the secret data transmitted along with the efile like time spent on preparation. Ever leave a return open when you went home? I guess if it took 10 hours it won't sound any alarms.

IP PINs work and have stopped a lot of fraudulent returns, but we all know that some the letters the IRS sends out each year with your new IP PIN will be lost in the mail lost by the taxpayer or sent to an old address Then we'll end up having to paper file without a PIN (if it's October) or extend and wait for a new PIN letter. Supposedly, if you have an IRS account, you can login and download your PIN letter, or maybe it's just request a new one be mailed?

All right, another challenge for hackers !

Jack...what did you say that was censured??? Hmm??