Margaret CPA in OH

New returns like W-2's would be new returns

Wow! This is one you surely are better off without having as a client. I just hope he doesn't owe you any money!

If the POA is general and authorizes such actions, I believe so. I have a client with MS that is totally incapacitated. Her long time partner has POA and I always include a copy with her returns. For about 10 years this has not been a problem.

I don't actually _tell_ my clients any of that because it is all in the engagement letter. The first time I work with a client, I carefully explain all the information in the engagement letter so that it is very clear (based on AICPA sample letter). If I have questions or doubts about any information while preparing a return, I ask for clarification or more details. I may also remind some people that I don't need to see support documentation but to be sure to retain it in their records in case of audit. Then again, I do not have walk-ins, about 99% of my clients are returning clients of many years and others are referrals who may need help for one or two years based on specific circumstances. The couple of clients that were iffy never returned. For several years I had posted on my file cabinet in sight of clients a headline about a tax preparer being imprisoned for fraud. I never said anything about the details, but one woman told me she would never come back because she thought I was trying to intimidate her. My thought was, if the shoe fits...

As mentioned, the percentage of non-Ohio income should be calculated. Form OH IT-2023 can prove useful in allocating the income whether or not 'required.' It is especially helpful I think with interest and dividends and other non-W-2 items when you know where earned but the system doesn't.

Hmmm, I guess you could change your message to something like, Please limit your message to 15 seconds please along with the number where you can be reached. I stop listening after 20 seconds because I have to call you back anyway.

I hear you, Marilyn. I had to join a user group and go online to find out. It wasn't any where in the user manual and I guess I'm too old to just 'know' how to do those things. The silent mode was the same issue.

I keep a pdf of each client's return because it is easier to resend if needed; I don't need to back up the entire program to have a client return copy; if my program crashes I still have access to the returns in a usable form; I create a pdf to send to the client to review anyway, password protected, so why not keep it?; I have a copy of the client's return right with all the supporting documentation in one place. There may be even more reasons such as, I've always done it that way, but I haven't and I like the other reasons instead! Diff'rent strokes...

This is so good - and so needed! RitaB, you are funnier than anyone I know RAMing to the place of virtual memory - just priceless! Keep it up and keep sharing. My clients are ever so boring compared to yours.

My QF update shows that the 15 year MACRS recovery period for qualified leasehold improvements, restaurant property and retail improvements is extended to 2010 and 2011.

That seems odd to me as Medicare is not a family plan but an individual insurance plan. I would think that the insurance deduction for a self-employed individual would be the plan that covers the individual and, IF a family plan that covers the family, family. I may be crotchety but it seems there should be a limit on what all the rest of us taxpayers should subsidize for others. If the instructions say that the amount must be paid by the owner of the business, how can it possibly be true about a spouse's Medicare premium which is deducted from that person's Social Security and clearly NOT paid by the self-employed owner of the business. I try to be aggressive with clients, too, but there have to be some limits and I would not do this. I don't believe it can be justified.

The spouse's Medicare premium would go on Schedule A, medical deductions subject to 7.5% of AGI.

The topic was Negative Loan Origination Fee on Feb. 3. I don't know how to link but I'm sure you can find it.

I raised that issue a couple of weeks ago. I'll try to find the thread. Consensus was to add to basis. Crazy, isn't it? Our financial institutions further obfuscating transactions...

If they are specifically asking that question, you could still reply that you don't efile 'those' returns and be truthful.

I no longer staple the OH returns. I tend to follow instructions. Many of the munis are now going that way, too. I do have concerns about lost W-2's, though.

Off the top of my head, anything in Box 1 is reportable, taxable wages. With all deferred to SIMPLE, Box 1 should be 0 so I think it is correct even if it looks weird.

That reminds me, KY also wants to make up the difference. I have a handful of KY residents and noticed that inclusion on the return. Soooo, I print out the sheet and ask for completion and signature on that, too. What a royal pain in the patooty! And I come off as the baddie.

I ask, include the question on the organizer questionnaire and now, for electronic filing, send the pdf of the disclosure statement from Ohio that the client has read the 'not our fault' provision regarding refunds (OH Dept of Taxation is not responsible for misapplication of a direct deposit refund...)and the OH Electronic Filing Information where "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Ohio income tax return .... true, correct and complete... Recently I also have been sending the input sheet for the Use Tax asking the client to sign if the answer is No to out of state, etc. purchases. I apologize for all the CYA but I really don't want anyone audited to come back and say I didn't tell them. By the way, for Ohio it is internet, mail order, telephone or out of state purchases on which sales tax was not paid. Really annoying...

I have had significant issues, too. See my unanswered post somewhere down the line. I finally spent about 90 unsatisfactory minutes on the line (mostly on hold) with tech support who was not able to resolve the issue. I have 2 partners in a personal return with identical K-1 input. The loss flowed perfectly for one, not the other, to Sch E. I even printed out the worksheets to see if I could determine the error which I must surely have made. Having found 0 differences, I overrode a field (I know, a sin). The worksheets have been redone this year and I think a couple of links have been missed. I did see on the K-1 entry places to enter UPE near the bottom but maybe you have to check the box at the top to calculate basis limitation and/or at-risk limitation to input on the appropriate worksheet. Or...override. Just don't tell anyone I told you.

Anyone else having this problem? I could override, but really prefer to utilize the capabilities of the software and really don't want to be on hold for ages with tech support. Thanks!

So the data entry this year is different with 6198, Basis Wkst and the K-1 sheets and I am about to cry. On the 6198 Input tab, for the life of me I cannot figure out how to get the Prior Loss (middle column, line 1, Ordinary income (loss) from the activity) to appear. My bunny doesn't hop from there and I simply cannot figure it out. I have an issue with the 1065 input, too. The loss is allowed for one but not the other partner although I swear the data is entered exactly the same for both. Honest! For the S-corp, the unallowable loss of nearly $100,000 (no basis any more!) is coming through on Sch E, page 2, despite my best efforts. I think it's time for some cheese with this w(h)ine but I could use some guidance. Thanks!

Hmmmm, is that all? Really, where DO you find these things? I don't believe you go looking for them but time and again you show us the most amazing feats of, well, time consumption. And I, for one, always spend time marveling at the creativity of folks. Thanks, Catherine!

Yes, happening to me as well.

That has happened to me twice and I could not determine any common factors other than memory issues as noted. I waited a while, closed the return and reran with no (geez, I hope!) apparent subsequent problems. It is/was a worry, though, as I have never before even seen that message until this year.