JJStephens

Church/clergy issues are my bread and butter. Perhaps I can help. Churches (and other employers) have historically done premium and other medical cost reimbursements in the form of a Medical Expense Reimbursement Plan (MERP) and more recently using a Section 105 Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA). One provision of the ACA made stand-alone HRAs illegal as of 1/1/2014; as of that date HRAs are permitted only if the employer offers it in conjunction with an ACA compliant group health insurance plan (such plans are known as integrated plans). Many employers (including scads of churches) didn't get the memo and continue offering obsolete MERPS and stand-alone HRAs. The bottom line is the reimbursement must be treated as additional income. That will likely require amended 941s and W2. It will also require a change in procedure for future activities. By the way, it is important to note that the employing church/ministry cannot designate any portion of the reimbursement-recategorized-as-salary as clergy housing allowance because the law prohibits making housing allowance designations retroactively (there is one exception to the general rule but it is so rare that I'll not bore you with the details). Rita is correct--clergy are not subject to FICA. Clergy have what is often called a 'dual tax status'. That is, they are (almost always) considered an employee of the church for income tax purposes but are always (100% of the time) considered self-employed for social security tax purposes. I.e., they must pay self-employment tax--unless they opted out of SECA by filing Form 4361--but that's a different conversation. Therefore, the employing church/ministry should never withhold FICA on clergy compensation. The clergy person should make quarterly estimated payments to cover their SECA liability. However, as an alternative strategy, the IRS permits (and even encourages) the clergy taxpayer to have his/her employing church/ministry withhold extra income tax in an amount equal to the SECA tax liability. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the tip. But to be perfectly honest, I was just trying to be funny. As is so often the case with my jokes, it didn't work. I guess I'll have to keep my day job and cancel my audition for America's Funniest Accounting Wonk competition.

Too bad they don't apply the same logic to the same income being taxed by the feds, state, school district and municipality. Deep sigh.

When last I checked there were not a lot of options for E&O coverage. And without much competition, rates trend higher. Anyone have a tip on affordable coverage. Okay, 'affordable coverage' may be an oxymoron. How about 'less outrageous' coverage?

I'm impressed. One of you guessed correctly and KC confirmed it. I'm not a Van Buren fan ... just think he looks kinda cool!

I get one of these every two or three years. Just a few days ago, my own daughter informed me they had not filed in '05 & '06. The only reason they decided to file now is that the IRS finally contacted them a couple months ago and then they got a letter last week saying they were going to go after hubby's paycheck to recover the $30k they say is owed. When I did the returns we found their actual balance due is 'only' around $14k. The IRS' computations did not include any withholding or dependent allowances.

I've been considering it for several years. In fact, twice in recent years I started similar threads on this board. Still haven't done anything other than get a few quotes and then hope nothing happens when I can't afford the substantial premiums.

I'm curious too. I set up a free accountant's account with them a while back but haven't done much other than to look at some of their sales propaganda. I did put it on my menu of offerings to my clients but so far I've had only casual interest and no takers. I also checked out another outfit with a similar service called Entryless. When I first looked at them last fall they were still in startup/building mode but seem to have made some good progress since then. They've been pretty aggressively pursuing me. I might check them both out again over the summer.

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.

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.

​I've often said that each year Intuit adds a nickel's worth of improvements for a $300 renewal fee. Call it capitalism or communism or whatever. I called it chutzpah. And somehow they get away with it. No more. After being with them for 20+ years, I pulled the plug back on Jan1 and migrated almost my entire client base to another solution--actually two solutions--one for books and one for payroll--both cloud based. So far, my clients love it.

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 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.

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.

Thanks for all the great tips. I've checked all of them except the CPU & HDD load. One thing I noticed after my original post is that many of the lags occur when I'm in a screen that requires a lot of text entry into a table. All in all, I've noticed that it is taking about 50% longer to do a return that it did 5 years ago. ATX's data entry has become more cumbersome and the program just seem to run as quickly as before.

I defrag weekly--but I'll give it another try. Thanks for the tip. I've also been thinking about going to a solid state drive.

For the past two weeks I've been having trouble with my ATX software lagging every once in a while (like once every 5-10 minutes). I'll make an entry and it sits and thinks about it for 5-30 seconds before moving to the next field. Sometimes the whole program grays out--that usually lasts at least 30 seconds. It doesn't happen with any other software. My updates are up to date. It has also started occasionally modifying text entries for me. I'll start entering some text (a name or address for example). About half way through the entry it arbitrarily drops all but one letter as I continue typing. There is no indication it is happening except when I look at the entry and see 4 or 5 characters where there should be 20. I now have to proof everything even more closely than before. Any one else having any trouble lately? Any thoughts about what to try? My guess is that a recent update got cobbled up in the download process but I thought I'd see if anyone else is experiencing these anomalies.

Twenty-five 990s down, 5 extended and 2 to go. Like someone else said, this is as bad as April 14/15.

You mean there's not some secret fraternity that I'm joining? I was hoping to at least get a decoder ring.

They offered me 5%.

Like I said earlier, I've been really close several times before. In fact, back in about '07/'08 I was ready to jump pending one thing. I needed Form 1023 for all the tax exempt entities I work with. I talked with Warren Drake about it and to my shock and amazement, ten minutes later Phil Drake (prez of the company) called me! He said they'd work on it. I just spoke with Warren about it last week. He told they decided to not add that form because it has no computations--it's just a fill in the blank 28 page form. No matter--I now have several other sources for fillable copies of the form. As for the secret password I inquired about, I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean the log on password. I meant the super-secret password or handshake or whatever it is that gets me in all the secret meetings of Drakeys.

KC-- I always thought you were a genius. Now I know it for sure!

Arrgghh! I figured out what the problem was. On Part IX I indicated the grant was to domestic individuals instead of domestic organizations. I sure wish this stupid computer would enter what I intended to do instead of what I actually put in. Stupid computer What I don't know is why the Check Return routine was linking back to Part IV instead of Part IX where the error was.

After dilly-dallying for about 10 years, I made the jump to Drake yesterday. I had been with ATX and its predecessor for about 20 years. I was mostly happy with ATX except for the switch to big impersonal CCH, the forum fiasco back in '08 and the '12 snafu (which didn't impact me as badly as some others). However, I noticed the last couple years that it was taking about 50% longer to prep a return than it did five years ago. Between coding bloat and making the input process more complicated ATX had just gotten too slow. Absorbing a 50% hit on prep time was just too much. I've been playing around with a Drake demo for a week or so and went to a demo seminar on Monday (about the 4th one I've been to--I'm just about on a first name basis with Warren Drake!). The speed together with Drake's business philosophy is what pushed me over the top. The fact that it's $300 cheaper (and only one price hike in 20 years) didn't hurt! So when I do I get the secret Drakey (or is Drakonian?) password?