Leaderboard

You didn't ask but I kicked in a bit to help cover the expanded band width we seem to keep gobbling up! Thanks ever so much for the support you give to our hardy band of internet colleagues. We wouldn't exist without you!

OK, no one spoke up to keep either of the old ones pinned and this topic has had close to 100 views, so now the only one that will stay pinned is the new one for tips and tricks.

Eric is, for keeping our forum up and running!

I'm with @NECPA in NEBRASKA on that comment; thank you because I don't know what I would do without this group.

Thank you! I don't know what I would do without you and this group.

I'm simply thinking of unpinning the post, not deleting it. The post would still be found by performing a simple search of our site.

And the monomers from those coat the inside of the windshield - which is where that icky film comes from. And it's so hard to get off because those monomers want to polymerize so they're trying it with your windshield! (Bet you never knew what scandalous activities were going on right in front of your face!)

I tried everything to get that off the inside of the windshield, you need to be a gymnast to get it clean enough for a tax preparer's standards.

That sounds good, but as to my above devil-may-care statement ("I'll take my chances and to...") regarding my disregarding CTC documents, I'm now not so sure that will fly with the IRS. If you answer "Yes" to 8867 question 5 ("Did you satisfy the record retention requirement), then it demands a list of the documents used (otherwise a "red warning" in the Check Return module keeps you from efiling until answered. Which is okay if you have documents. On the other hand, if don't have the documents and want to answer "No" to question 5, then a list of documents is NOT demanded in the Check Return module and you can efile with no problem. But the question is - how does this look to IRS (since I'm saying "No, I did not satisfy the record retention requirement)? In one sense, the 8867 seems to allow this by its "if any" statement right above the box 5 spot where you list the documents: it says "...list those documents, IF ANY, that you relied on." So, I don't want to say "yes, I retained documents" when I actually didn't, but is the saying "no" enough to make us dig some up and then list them to get along with IRS?

Thanks Eric. You're a real blessing to this group and we appreciate all your efforts.

Well, first, I'm not going to make any notes about what the taxpayer says because that's generally a mixture of blather and non-helpful information. But for the documents I relied on, I list: (1) School Records (2) Medical Records (3) Social Services Records. What I mean by school records is that I ask them to get either a report card with the kid's name and address on it or (preferably) a printout of their "Registration Information" which is a paper that many schools keep listing all personal info: name, home address, date/place of birth, grade record, age, attendance dates, and every other thing you can think of. Even if they can't come up with anything else, I'll go with this alone. For medical records I ask for a doctor bill with the kid's name and address on it. Most don't have this, but occasionally they will. Also I'll ask for an insurance card; some have the address (which is what we're trying to prove), some don't have it, although I try to get a 1095-A/B/C (astonishing how many people say they never got one). By social services records I mean any kind of Social Security statements, county assistance papers, guardianship/custody decrees, any remotely semi-legal paper, court-issued or otherwise. Some of this stuff (except the school thing) doesn't have a home address, but I figure at least it shows I tried. All of the above is for EIC. If they're only getting CTC and I know the people, then I'll take my chances and the hell with it -- I'm not slogging through all that hogwash for it. If I don't know them, then I will.

I am leaning towards thesitefactory.com, they have a specialized format for accountants and taxpo's, looks like it can be easily customized and cost $16.25 per month. Looks like a good starter kit for now.

Haha thanks for the kind words

I have clients who have been with me since before the kids were born (or since they were toddlers). I've seen the wives come into my office with a big round belly, and gotten the baby pictures by email. They come in every year, I hear the tales of school and getting to take the class hamster home for February vacation, I see the kids coloring in books in the corner, they get bored and come climb on Daddy's lap - I am NOT going to go crazy asking for "proof" these kids are theirs or any of the other gobbledygook. New clients - those I'll ask for some documents.

I vote for unpinning so new posts are higher, don't require as much scrolling.

Yes, I do keep any documents provided by the taxpayer that I relied upon. If the client didn't provide any, my answer is yes. If I didn't rely on any, my answer is yes. I only have to keep documents provided by the taxpayer THAT I relied upon.

I had already increased the monthly bandwidth allocation for the site in anticipation of the growth we've seen in traffic since last year, but apparently I didn't boost it enough! All better now, I'll be sure to keep a better eye on that.

Thank you, Eric!

General Delivery at a zip code still works. Has to be to a post office which processes it (I think if there is more than one office in a certain area, one is designated for GD). I also remember something about a postmaster being able to refuse GD. I have at least two customers who use GD. I remember speaking to one several years back. IIRC, they use GD instead of paying for a box. The other, I am not sure, since they have a street address listed online.

No problem, and I appreciate everyone's input here so don't be sorry or embarrassed at all.

Well, now that you brought that up I'd like to mention something about the new car smell. Years ago, one of my fireman came down with a rare cancer at 46 y/o. No known cause but we thought it had something to do with a fire we had in a hospital's X Ray room where there was some radioactive iodine. He became our research specialist on cancer causes and he impressed on us to always open your windows for a couple of minutes to air out the car, especially in the summer. The plastics and vinyl give off VOCs, Volatile Organic Compounds, vaporizing especially when heated...hence, part of your new car smell. Those VOCs are nasty, containing benzene, chlorine, fluorine, among others. So don't take any deep breaths when you get into the new car, as much as it gives you a good feeling, fresh air is always better. BTW, that fireman didn't live much longer, I miss him. Thanks Abby, you made a good point.

Haven't referred to the repair regs post in a long time. I printed out the state EINs awhile ago. Thanks for all you do, you're one of my heroes, along with Wonder Woman.

I also e-filed one individual, and have our own individual return input completed. I'm waiting on our 1099-SA forms. I did e-file the C corp return for my own business last night too. None of my clients have all of their documentation yet so I'll have a couple more weeks before the onslaught.

It is my decided and experienced professional opinion that: "Any deadlines or enforcement practices threatened by the IRS are a TOTAL comedy show." Anyone with evidence to the contrary, please post it here.

Eeegads! I only complete a total of 400 returns. If I were as efficient as you, I would be 25% through the season. I only have 9 drop offs so far, and only 2 of them have all necessary information.

I believe the $10,000 would be a non-dividend distribution. Distribution to extent of capital stock is basis to shareholder. Then distribution to extent of Retained Earning is dividend income. Remaining distribution is liquidating dividend.. That is how it would appear on the 1099-DIV and how I believe it would shake out on the 1120. So to answer your question - the liquidating distribution does not necessarily tie to the M-2.

Thanks for the chocolate and the help!

You know, it's the first corp of the year and I forgot that I have the software set to not autobalance the Sch L so it didn't fill in retained earnings. I just went back in and entered the negative $10K in Sch L for the unapprop R.E, and then Drake filled out the M-2 including line 8. I don't know why it wouldn't complete the M-2 because of that, but now it's filling in those lines. I guess that was my whole problem, because the program was leaving lines blank and not completing the math. Now Sch L shows $10K in common stock and negative $10K in r.e.

Sounds right to me....One washes the other out...Books closed...

In some cases I suspect we are overthinking this. You still have the option to choose "did not rely on any documents" for all three credits. If I have a new client whom I know nothing about or if I suspect an existing client who is fairly new is not being honest, then I would ask for the documentation. The reason behind all of this is for us to attempt to determine the legitimacy of the credits the client is claiming in an attempt to prevent EIC and CTC fraud. It only makes sense that a client who has been claiming a dependency for the same kids with identical last names for 10 or more years is not committing fraud. Some folks are just stupid. I had a client once that tried to claim kids on a MFS return (lied about that too) when those same kids did not exist on their MFJ return which I prepared for a couple of years and then supposedly they split. We did not have to do any where near the due diligence then that we do now. I refused to prepare the return simply because I knew. Those are the ones we are to look out for. Personally, I would not ask for the documentation for each and every client in my data base. But, most definitely for a new client whom I have no prior experience. I would like to think that as professionals we know our clients and do not take the attitude to just shove them thru to get the revenue as some of the big corp preparers do.