Margaret CPA in OH

Ray, I believe we agreed that the correct spelling is 'frikkin' although, when it comes to idyut, variations on spelling are likely acceptable. I have trouble with folks bumping into my mailbox post. Every time I remind them of the narrow drive, look out the window, don't rely on your rear view mirror, and, alas, repeatedly this falls on deaf, idyut ears.

We've got us a real competition going here. Maybe we should keep track and have some sort of consolation prize for the worst of the season. I'm thinking there will be many, many entries!

It's a wonder that client told you the results. It can be embarrassing to admit such things. Is the client returning? Are you accepting? Did you say or think, "I told you so, nyah, nyah?"

There may be a 'wash' of sorts but the corp still needs to issue Forms 1099-INT and the shareholder/lender still needs to include it on their personal return. It's the principle, too. If one shareholder loaned money but not another, it wouldn't be a 'wash' to the shareholdet that didn't lend.

My upset client can't believe that the brokerage firm didn't provide the basis for the mutual funds that they transferred in 2005. They were inherited and client did find the forms showing basis stepped up at that time but client is upset that firm didn't ask to input into their system and keep track of reinvested divs and cap gains. I explained how the law has finally been changed but only to the extent that the firm has the original basis. I asked client how did he think the brokerage could possibly know? He asked how I knew about this stuff. I explained that an accounting degree and MBA in taxation did a lot but investors should find out what they are getting into. I think he's calmer now, especially since I now know the sales are all long term, they are in the 15% bracket, and the gains are at 0% tax (except for one short term). When I originally input, the 1099 said all were short term because they dated from transfer into their firm. What people just don't know and get angry with us about is amazing!

I think that would fall under TMI from their perspective. We are probably not on the 'need to know' list. But one could hope!

Sweet Bippie? You don't look old enough to know that phrase. Did you watch the recent program with highlights from Laugh-in? I missed it, will try to find it online.

Like many others, I think our tax code would be soooooo much simpler if the legislators were required to complete their own tax returns. Then again, it's a measure of job security of sorts for some of us, I guess.

Eerie, isn't it? I updated twice already since about 9 and checked the version after the note from JRS - it was the same. Suddenly, a new version and update! Get the feeling someone's watching? Nahhhh...

Sigh...Thanks for trying to help but I still end up in the endless loop of 'Don't worry, it's coming...just refresh the page.' I refresh the page, click on the arrow, same thing. Groundhog Day redux.

Lion, I think we are being sent a subliminal message about something. Access denied!

Now that depends on what, exactly! the quote is and how much trouble I'll be in because of it.

Cathy, I can access all but the Choice of Entity. I can live without it if it means a requirement to have Facebook or Twitter. My life will not be totally incomplete!

I concur. The next thing you know, the business would be contacted as to why it didn't file withholding returns, etc. And it is possible that the business has already done due diligence, knows the amounts are below whatever threshold required, etc. I doubt there is true nexus or they would be filing corp returns as a foreign corp.

My first accounting position was for a smallish firm outside of Boston. The owner actually did over a million in billing back in 1986 but most records were still in his home office. He was audited the second year I was there and told the story of his wife's experience with the auditor. After about 3 looooong days of combing over every little detail, the auditor challenged the wife with a single $100 deposit in the checking account which didn't have a notation such as reimbursement, gift, whatever. By this time this little, middle aged woman used to going out daily was so frustrated that she yelled at the auditor that it was payment from a John she picked up. Materiality - $100 in the context of well over a million...

In Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, this is on the personal returns, not business.

That's good news, Bart. An hour and a half is better than half a day. And you likely had great notes about what was entered elsewhere and a good memory of the bottom line to double check. Still very frustrating, I'm sure! None of us like to do double work for single pay and there is no ready excuse for the software to behave that way. Here's hoping Never Again!

Thanks for educating me about found money. I honestly did not know that. I will begin keeping track of the change that I find on my runs. I would appreciate cites for the reimbursement of gas money for a trip to the airport as payment for services when not in the position of employment. If this is so, there must be millions of us that wilfully, albeit unknowingly, violate this. Perhaps most folks would consider it a gift because it is at least likely that the person 'providing the service' would not set a charge or even truly expect money for helping a family member or neighbor get somewhere. Still, there may be something to the materiality aspect that you raise. More research!

Pacun, you raise what may be good points here but I think they are more philosophical. The $30 for gas might be considered income except it is more likely a reimbursement for expenses incurred and would not be payment for an activity engaged in for profit. The found $20 I would view more as a gift. You did nothing to receive it. Generally speaking, and it is a generalization, it appears that reportable income is income defined in the tax code and specified in the instructions for the tax return. I did not find reimbursements for gas for taking someone to the airport or found money even under line 21, other income. If it is important to _you_, by all means amend your returns. Given the specific examples that you cite, it would not be reportable income to me. I don't believe it is a materiality issue so much as source of income. I invite you to educate me on reporting found money or reimbursements. I certainly don't know it all. If I found hundreds of dollars, I would most likely donate it after trying to find the loser first, though!

Hmmm, I think I suggested the same thing above. Great minds, etc. but only if this was a returning client. For Bart's sake, I hope so!

Ohio, where I practice, and Indiana and Kentucky (from where I have a few clients) all have a Use tax. I do require a written answer to the question from clients. The question on the Ohio return asks if you made any out of state, mail order, internet or other purchases on which you did not pay sales tax? If so, how much were total purchases? The return calculates the tax due related to the resident county as the rates vary. There is a check box for NO for those who answer no so no need to input a 0. I include the efiling page which has a checkbox at the top stating that "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Ohio income tax return and if applicable, the Ohio school district income tax return are true, correct and complete." I no longer check that box unless the client has checked it and signed the page. In addition, Ohio now also has a CYA for the tax department that is a disclosure statement. Essentially the taxpayer has to sign that they read the details related to the direct deposit options selected. The tax department is not responsible for the misapplication of a direct deposit refund, yada, yada. I make the taxpayer check that box and sign the page, too. I also apologize for the extra steps but I will no longer assume those risks.

I am a clutterer, too. Somehow my desk can't stand being cleared. It just attracts paper and holds with unseen forces. Of course, part of the desk is a cushion for whichever cat arrives first. Both also like to lay on any paper so I have to leave some around for that. But really, if it's on my desk I can find it. Might take a while but at least I know it's there - somewhere. Drives my husband a bit nuts but it's good to know that there are others like me.

Wow! I can't even imagine that happening. Don't you have a backup somewhere? Or have you maybe even overwritten that. 500 assets... All just input last week? Is it possible to rollover again from last year or is this a new client? I really feel for you, Bart. That's worse than losing several hundred Sch D tranactions.

Time for a stiff drink, I'd say, and a good night's sleep!

Okay JohnH and Cathy. Let us in on your secret. You both wrote that you saw them all so please be kind enough to share the 'how' with Lion, me, and any others out here having problems. Thanks!