jklcpa

One of my clients already had their 1095-A in hand last week. He received an email from the Marketplace instructing him how to print the form from the Marketplace messages section. He said one would be coming in the mail also. Apparently, anyone who signed up for email as their method of communicating with the Marketplace may already have access to their form.

In considering whether posters should have the ability to hide or delete their posts, perhaps we need to discuss why this would ever be necessary if we follow Mom's rule. If people here are willing to give their reasons why this is an important function, the decision may be easier for you. For what it's worth, only one other of my current forums allows editing of posts, and that is only until someone responds after, and then editing is no longer available. There have been no other forums that I've ever been involved with that allow hiding or deletion of a post once it is made. One reason that comes to mind of why forums do not allow hiding or deleting is to avoid flouncing. You'd think it wouldn't happen on professional forums, but it does.

I fixed that for anyone reading it from now on.

Eric, what I'm trying to describe in my post #2 above where "hiding" may still be a source of confusion is this - First person makes a post, another person responds directly and immediately following and doesn't quote it because this forum has a relaxed & conversational tone, if the first person then hides his or her post... then the topic may become confusing, or others are unclear or unaware why a post was made or worded in a certain way because the quote function wasn't used I your mom.

The ability to hide one's posts may still leave us with responses to unseen posts unless we continue to use the quote function. Even if you limited the hiding up until the time someone responded to it, I don't know that that would be a good thing either since some people "follow" the forums without actually coming to this site. Wouldn't they still get that post even after it was hidden?

The purposes of posting it here was to show the impact on our work this season and in future, not the motives of the commissioner or the timing of its release. The budget was approved and he wrote a letter to his agency staff. I don't know why you think its timing or content is inappropriate, or that it should have been released at a different time. That wouldn't even make sense.

If I edited out the first paragraphs to exclude any mention of Congress or budget in the rest of a lengthy letter, the purpose of the letter would hardly make sense, and that small portion of the letter hardly constitute a "political" discussion within that letter when no whys and wherefores of the reasons behind those cuts were mentioned at all.

Please keep the politics out of the discussion. I posted the letter to show how the cuts will greatly impact our work, nothing more.

highlights appeared in yesterday's Journal of Accountancy - Dear IRS Employees, As I promised last month, I am following up with you to share some important new details about what the 2015 budget cuts will mean for you and your colleagues as well as the nation's taxpayers. There is no way around the severity of these budget cuts without taking some difficult steps. Congress approved a $10.9 billion budget for us, which means we must absorb a cut of $346 million during the remaining nine months of the fiscal year. But that really amounts to a total reduction of about $600 million when you count another $250 million in mandated costs and inflation. This is the lowest level of funding since 2008, and the lowest since 1998 when inflation is considered. To determine the full impact of this budget cut, our senior leadership and our financial team have been working since its enactment in December. We have also discussed the situation with NTEU during this period as we grappled with some very difficult choices that none of us want to make. As I have said before, this year we are looking at a situation where realistically we have no choice but to do less with less. With that mind, we have made additional decisions to reflect the budget reduction. Here are a few examples of what these cuts will mean this year: 1. Delays to critical IT investments of more than $200 million. Impact: This will hurt taxpayer service and cost-efficiency efforts as well as reduce outside contractor support for critical projects. This means that new taxpayer protections against identity theft will be delayed. The Taxpayer Advocate Service won't be able to obtain a new case management system to oversee taxpayer hardship cases. Aging IT systems will not be replaced, increasing the risk of downtime that affects taxpayer service and your ability to work effectively. We will not be able to invest upfront money to gain future operational savings, such as moving to a shared cloud infrastructure and reducing data center space. 2. Enforcement cuts of more than $160 million. Impact: Fewer audit and collection cases. Reduced staffing in enforcement will result in at least 46,000 fewer individual and business audit closures and more than 280,000 fewer Automated Collection System and Field Collection case closures As a result of the hiring freeze, we will lose about 1,800 enforcement personnel through attrition during FY 2015. The reduced enforcement staffing for just FY 2015 means the government will lose at least $2 billion in revenue that otherwise would have been collected. 3. Cuts in overtime and temporary staff hours by more than $180 million. Impact: Delays in refunds for some taxpayers. People who file paper tax returns could wait an extra week - or possibly longer - to see their refund. Taxpayers with errors or questions on their returns that require additional manual review will also face delays. Increasing correspondence inventories. We realize there will be growing inventories in Accounts Management, and taxpayer correspondence will face lengthy delays. Taxpayer service diminished further over the phone and in person. We now anticipate an even lower level of telephone service than before, which raises the real possibility that fewer than half of taxpayers trying to call us will actually reach us. During Fiscal Year 2014, 64 percent were able to get through. Those who do reach us will face extended wait times that are unacceptable to all of us. 4. Extending the hiring freeze through FY 2015. Impact: As a result of the hiring freeze and assuming normal attrition rates, we expect to lose between 3,000 and 4,000 additional full-time employees. The total reduction in full-time staffing between FY 2010 and FY 2015 is expected to be between 16,000 and 17,000. During this process, we tried to protect critical areas as much as we could. We will still work to deliver as smooth a filing season as possible. We will maintain IT systems critical to the filing season and tax enforcement. This commitment also includes providing appropriate training and technology support for you and your colleagues to help you do your job. Even with all of these reductions, we still face a remaining budget shortfall. Unfortunately, this means at this time we need to plan for the possibility of a shutdown of IRS operations for two days later this fiscal year, which will involve furloughing employees on those days. We plan to work with NTEU regarding this possibility, and will fulfill our bargaining obligation with NTEU. This is an area of major concern for me and the entire IRS leadership team. Shutting down the IRS will be a last resort, but I want to be upfront with you about the problem. I know even a day's worth of pay makes a huge difference in household budgets and family situations. While we will continue to do the best we can to avoid this action, the cuts in the budget are so deep that we may have no other choice. If this becomes necessary, our goal will be to minimize disruption to employees and our operations as well as taxpayers and the tax professional community. The timing for these dates would be late in the fiscal year, so between now and then we can do everything possible to avoid them. I realize the importance of a possible shutdown. We will be engaging NTEU in negotiations shortly. Furthermore, we will continue to keep you updated on this in the weeks and months ahead. The effect of these cuts will hurt taxpayers and our tax system. But I know firsthand the commitment and dedication you and your colleagues have to the nation and to taxpayers, and I know you will continue to do your best even as we are forced to do less than all of us want. - John A. Koskinen

Hey easytax; I'm hardheaded too (uh, in case anyone missed that so far! ), and I'm happy to help when I'm able. Sometimes I'm also wrong. We all need to keep discussing and questioning these issues and situations because sometimes these things are clear as mud. We need to help each other get to the correct answers because this season is going to be a bear. Thanks for the offer of chocolate. Tonight's treat was a Reese's Klondike ice cream bar.

Is there one? I don't think there is anything prohibiting a separate charge for e-filing. Some states do have laws that say preparers can't charge for bank products and fee collect though. Is it possible that is what you are remembering from a discussion we had on this forum late last year?

Has anyone signed up to know how long this is? One hour, or is it more? I'd like to block off the time.

What I posted above is the tax code, a higher authority than any IRS pub or reg. Any instructions, pubs and regs that have already been issued refer back to 5000A as it is THE authority here. Unless it is amended in future, I think we already have the answer and don't need to wait for future publications for clarity.

The cite I have is from the U.S code, specifically 26 U.S. code sec 5000A (c )(4)(A), (B ) and (C ) - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A. Sec 5000A is the part of the code that is the "Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage". (4) Terms relating to income and families For purposes of this section— (A) Family size The family size involved with respect to any taxpayer shall be equal to the number of individuals for whom the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151 (relating to allowance of deduction for personal exemptions) for the taxable year. (B ) Household income The term “household income” means, with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, an amount equal to the sum of— (i) the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer, plus (ii) the aggregate modified adjusted gross incomes of all other individuals who— (I) were taken into account in determining the taxpayer’s family size under paragraph (1), and (II) were required to file a return of tax imposed by section 1 for the taxable year. (C ) Modified adjusted gross income The term “modified adjusted gross income” means adjusted gross income increased by— (i) any amount excluded from gross income under section 911, and (ii) any amount of interest received or accrued by the taxpayer during the taxable year which is exempt from tax. Forgive me if I am wrong, but the way I read this is that the MAGI of those dependents has the possibility of being included, but the hurdle that stops its inclusion is 5000A(4)(B )(ii)(II) just below the big red "AND". Please, if someone has some official cite that contradicts this, please share it.

Pacun is correct. Only MAGI of dependents required to file is included in household income. From form 8962 instructions for line 2b - Enter the modified AGI for all of your dependents on line 2b. Use the worksheet next to figure the combined modified AGI for the dependents claimed as exemptions on your return. Only include the modified AGI of those dependents who are required to file a return. Do not include the modified AGI of dependents who are filing a tax return only to claim a refund of tax withheld or estimated tax.

I'm not going to worry about this or whether or not it's true. I may make a general statement such as "your return includes credits that may delay your refund if the IRS decides to scrutinize these credits more closely or requests documentation before finishing the processing of your return."

Rich, I don't think that not filing the 3115 is the best course of action if you scrub the depreciation schedule, even if they have zero basis due to sec 179. I think the IRS expects some of those 3115s to be filed with a zero 481(a) adjustment. In the blog that Frazzled linked to in her first post, a moderator named "Coddington" posted (post #4 in that blog) to refute that statement from Jennings. Take it or leave it, but here's is what he posted: Sorry, but Bob Jennings is wrong. Scott MacKay (then of Treasury) actually went out of his way at the 2014 ABA Tax Section Mid-year meeting to address some of the misinformation Jennings has been spreading. It's rare to hear a governmental panelist so upset by what's going on in the marketplace. The only time a Form 3115 would not be necessary is if the taxpayer has never had any repairs or improvements, has no materials or supplies impacted by the new regs, and so on. (This always happens with new taxpayers, such as via a valid 351 drop-down.) In applying section 446, every circuit that has ruled on the issue agrees that taxpayers must file method changes even when going from an impermissible method. (The 10th Circuit had a different approach applying the predecessor statute from the '39 Code, but the revised language of section 446 trumps that approach.) Changing its long-standing regulations for ambiguous statutes, even if contrary to prior judicial precedents, is within the power of Treasury in the post-Mayo world. So any year that a taxpayer has material, supply, repair, improvement, or other costs that are treated differently under their current method and under the new regs, the taxpayer would need to file a Form 8725-R. Now, from a practical standpoint, many small taxpayers will be able to use the new de minimis safe harbor and the new small taxpayer safe harbor and avoid most issues going forward. From this perspective, the filing of Forms 3115 with zero-dollar section 481(a) adjustments, prospective application of the regulations as of 1/1/14, and use of the safe harbors is generally the safest course. Treasury and Chief Counsel have been going around saying that review of section 481(a) adjustments is a Field issue and no one is aware of a situation where the lack of a negative adjustment unwinds an otherwise valid method change. The problem for many small clients, however, is that if there is no method change, they reported repair expenses on their pre-'14 returns, and they have no improvements on their fixed asset records, the Service might dig deeper and come up with a positive section 481(a) adjustment. So you'd need to do a risk analysis for your clients to see whether they are exposed or have an opportunity under the regs. Of course, for many small clients, like those that use most property management companies, you won't even have enough info to apply the de minimis and small taxpayer safe harbors, so you'll have to look at the regs (and method changes) for other options. -Brian Tax accounting methods and credits consultant for hire. http://www.coddingtontax.com

In addition to the rev procs and other links above, I'll add this 44-page summary from Wolters Kluwer CCH issued this past May on the subject that is available on the internet. I saved it to my desktop earlier this year and plan to go through it again this coming weekend. It is written in a way that is easier to understand than some of the other writings I've seen, and it has some very good charts. There's one on the last few pages that summarizes the form 3115 change numbers to use, the general topic those numbers relate to, their specific purpose, and the related tax regs for easy reference.

David left ATX for another vendor so he will no longer have the ability to efile through the ATX server using those prior year programs.

I have the same concerns about the scrubbing and especially concerned about the repair bills. How far back are some of you really planning to check these? I am much more worried about looking at those repair bills for my clients than I am about the ACA. I don't know if you are correct about not needing the 3115 if the asset has been fully depreciated via sec 179 or the years of 100% bonus depreciation though. I was just looking over the instructions for the form 3115 again last night and one of the questions asked on that form is if any of the assets being scrubbed were previously expensed under any provisions such as these, and to attach a detailed schedule.

Letter 4800C = Questionable Credit 30 Day Contact Letter, found on this page under 3.8.45.28.14 "Special Handling to Hold Payments" http://www.irs.gov/irm/part3/irm_03-008-045r-cont04.html

^ LIKE. I've reached my quota for the day for clicking the like button Yes, and instead of finding some logical way to identify or deter those fraudulent EIC returns in the first place, they'd rather go after the preparers by imposing higher penalties because that is the easier, more lucrative path.

Too bad the IRS won't slow down the refunds on returns with EIC, at least until W-2 income is verified.

This was posted on the facebook page of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, which stated its source was "an IRS contact". My quick search didn't turn up any other source or information about this, but that doesn't mean this might not be true. I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. As always, ask for more information and documentation than simply relying on the amount that is reported on the form 1098T. Why doesn't the IRS require that the 1098T include a box for the amounts paid, instead of only reporting the amount billed? I suppose that would be too logical.

David, you won't have to submit fingerprints because you are a CPA. You shouldn't have a problem at all. There are a few simple questions to answer about being UTD on tax payments, compliant with professional licensing and such like that.