Leaderboard

I actually got acks back from two of the returns I transmitted today (odd considering I transmitted 23) that now say "transmitted to agency" so at least the Russians (if that who is at the wheel) are playing along. I suspect we are all about to get 2 free years of an identity theft subscription . . .

All of these methods are just security theater and can be hacked. The one I think is best is the authenticator apps. I have google authenticator on my phone and use it for google and 2 other sites. But I'm sure it can be hacked too. There's a movement to get away from passwords and go to authenticator devices that you plug into a usb port. Just don't lose your device! https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/364693/why-passwords-might-finally-go-away

9:48 AM Eastern just back to office and those 3 returns have ACKs!! So efile appears to be working fine, solutions center is not working. Weird date on ACK for State of PA, printed at 2:47:56 AM although I sent in at 6:47:56 AM which is the Fed accepted time. When I looked at efile acknowledgement history it is wrong on one side correct on the other. The long and the sort however is they are accepted, "I THINK!" and "I HOPE!"

The QR code box appears on the desktop or laptop running the Drake software, and then the phone or tablet's camera is used in conjunction with the MFA app to authenticate the user trying to log in is who they say they are. It's similar to how financial sites and other secure sites will text a code to a cell phone that the user enters as part of the log in process.

Why don't we have a long Mother's Day weekend and reconnoiter on Monday.

Sorry Edsel, but I vote for stupid. Love you man, but you are voicing frustrations, not practical tax solutions. You cannot ethically sign a tax return that contains a position that you know to be incorrect. The taxpayer did not make estimated payments during the year, and to tell the IRS they did is to falsify the tax return. Agree with the rest that the TPA is the best first route. Then explore your options in court. Get some help if you need it, from someone you trust. Good Luck Tom Modesto, CA

I'm moving my sites to a new server this month. Sticking with the same host, but I need a little more speed and flexibility. I had planned on making the ATX Community one of the first few sites to go, but it looks like you folks are dealing with enough website-related turmoil for the moment, so I'll hold off and save this site for last. When it is time to move, there will be some minor downtime--I'll need to shut down the site during the move which will take about an hour, and then it'll be another hour or two (give or take) for the domain's DNS settings to propagate. Inevitably, there will be one or two members who won't see the new site for an extended period of time because their ISP's DNS servers are garbage. In cases like that, I highly recommend using a 3rd party DNS service for your entire network. Cloudflare DNS (I use this for my home network (router configuration) and on my cell phone) OpenDNS Google Public DNS I'll post again with an update as I get closer to the end of my site transfers.

in large part because we need to use the fool things, and without accepting the tos we're dead in the water.

I'd try the Taxpayer Advocate first, as others have recommended. If that does not get prompt attention, then tax court. The thing is, that if a tax court case is filed, the FIRST thing the court does is send the case down to high-level Appeals with strongly worded recommendations to RESOLVE the issue, so the court doesn't have to hear the case. That level is peopled with competent problem-solvers who do NOT want the court to verbally dope-slap them, later, for failure to resolve. Besta bote woilds!

11:15AM CST. Was able to transmit one return.

IMHO this is a tax court case and your client should turn it over to a tax attorney.

I am not aware of an way to export the return data to an excel sheet or anything, unfortunately, but what you might be able to do is customize the columns in the return manager and add the "business" column. Then just check the "individual" returns box and you can sort that new column by the "business" net income. I am not sure if this will also include pass through income, though, but it's worth a try unless someone else has a better idea.

Are you asking the forum members for help in accomplishing this task or did you just want us to know?

I think there was a small window about two hours ago that appears to have been closed. I was able to receive acks and transmit 23 returns while the window was open but I have not been able to connect since. I now fear that I sent those 23 returns to Russia but if POTUS trusts them they cannot be bad people right?

Just be patient in hearing back from someone, after filing Form 911, we received a call 4-5 months afterwards, I know some of you are lucky here and didn't experience the same issue as I did.

This was not a ponzi scheme and the U.S government that found these culprits guilty of fraud was the U.S Department of Justice. According to TP, the department will be checking for the next 20yrs to see if the culprits have any money to pay back the investors. TP in their heart know they will never get paid I believe I found my answer to question 1: Year of discovery with no reasonable prospect of recovery. Determining the correct year in which to take the theft loss deduction may be the most troublesome aspect of the deduction. A taxpayer with an allowable theft loss who takes the deduction in an inappropriate year can face not only the disallowance of the deduction, but also substantial penalties and interest. IRC section 165(e) states that any loss arising from theft shall be treated as sustained in the taxable year the taxpayer discovers the loss and is thus deductible in that year. The Treasury Regulations specifically note that the loss is not deductible in the year the theft actually occurs unless that is also the year in which the loss is discovered. The troublesome caveat, however, is found in Treasury Regulations section 1.165-8(a)(2); if in the year of discovery there exists a reasonable prospect of recovery or reimbursement, that portion of the loss may not be deducted until it can be determined that recovery or reimbursement will not occur. Furthermore, if it is “unknowable” if recovery will occur, the entire deduction must be postponed until it can be determined with reasonable certainty whether such reimbursement will be received. A reasonable prospect of recovery exists when the taxpayer has a bona fide claim for recovery or reimbursement and there is a substantial possibility that such claims will be decided in the taxpayer’s favor. The Tax Court has explained that a taxpayer does not have to be an “incorrigible optimist,” and claims for recovery whose potential for success are remote or nebulous will not cause a postponement of the deduction. Furthermore, the court does not look at facts whose existence was not reasonably foreseeable as of the end of the year in which the loss was discovered. In other words, the fact that the taxpayer subsequently succeeded in a legal action on the claim does not necessarily mean that no reasonable prospect of recovery existed in the year the deduction was taken [Ramsay Scarlett & Co. v. Comm’r, 521 F.2d 786 (4th Cir. 1974)]. This standard presents important considerations for taxpayers who are determining whether there is a reasonable prospect for recovery in a given year. If a taxpayer files suit against the perpetrator or joins in an existing suit, a prospect for recovery is usually deemed to exist. The lengthy process of lawsuits and receiverships can, however, delay the allowance of the claim. A similar delay in deductibility may occur when the taxpayer files bankruptcy claims against the perpetrator of the investment theft. In Bunch v. Comm’r (TC Memo 2014-177 2014), the Tax Court ruled that the taxpayers had a reasonable prospect of recovery at the end of the discovery year because they had filed a claim in connection with the perpetrator’s bankruptcy proceeding and it had not yet been proven that there would be no assets with which to pay the claims. Another consideration for taxpayers is the cost of litigation. Because “reasonable prospect of recovery” is a factual determination, it is usually not resolved by a motion for summary judgment. This means that a full trial may be needed to win against an IRS action. The cost is often prohibitive for many taxpayers. Source: https://www.cpajournal.com/2016/10/01/the-defrauded-investors-solace/

Taxpayer advocates are for everyone. That is my recommendation as well.

DNS is like the phone book of the internet. It ties names (atxcommunity.com) to numbers (67.255.188.166). If your ISP has a crummy DNS server and doesn't refresh its phone book properly, every time you go to atxcommunity.com, you'll get the wrong number and see the old site on the old server. When I start the migration, it'll be late in the evening. I'll shut down the site and replace it with a message that says something like "we've moved to a new server. as soon as the internet does its thing, you'll see the site again" and then follow that with my contact info. If 12 hours goes by and you're still seeing that, then your ISP has unreliable DNS servers. Luckily, it's pretty painless to change two numbers in your router's configuration (although all routers are different so finding them can sometimes be tricky) so that you can use some nice, free, fast service from a 3rd party that you don't even have to sign up for. As an added bonus, they'll respect your privacy more than most ISPs. I started years ago using Google's Public DNS because I had a crummy ISP. Cloudflare's service is faster, and I prefer not to put all of my privacy eggs in one basket so I switched. If there's some down side to using their service, I have never encountered it.

Have you/client tried the Taxpayer Advocate? Friendly, local Congressperson? Maybe even a tax attorney, depending on the issue(s). I think the form letters are generated by a computer, and you won't get a real person involved, certainly not the level of person you need.

have you tried working with a taxpayer advocate?

It is an "ignored" problem everywhere, at least for payroll and withholding purposes. For employers it is terribly complicated already, and that is without considering their remote employee may work while in a other locations (not at the agreed upon location) and never tell the employer... There are several states (the last time I looked) that tax based on employer location (coupled with taxation for the location worked), which is where the double hit can come into play. In theory (or maybe fact), should I travel to NY and take a work call or an email, I have to report wages to NY (maybe even NYC or Yonkers depending on location). Going back to basics, an employee should be reporting (time clock, paper, whatever) all time worked and at what location(s). Employer is responsible, but employee usually has to provide the data unless there is tracking involved. Employer then has the required information to register with the proper jurisdictions, assign wages appropriately, and so on. It an employee is allowed to be remote, employee also has to monitor what their employer reports, and handle, via their own returns, any wages subject to taxation not already handled by the employer. Jock taxation (pro sports) is a fine example, with a wealth of references. Not that I wanted a certain player to sign with "my" team, the tax burden he would have faced was a factor in his decision, since it does not appear my "home" team would have increased their matching offer to make the player "whole" compared to having 81 games in a more tax friendly location.