Margaret CPA in OH

I was thinking orginally the improvements, too, but decided that the initial construction of the driveway and paving would be the land improvement. It seems to me that resealing would either be a repair (yes, it would extend the life but not for 15 years) or no class life of 7 years. That seemed more realistic, at least to me.

I have 4 client files still in "Transmitted to EFC" status on my computer. I have spent, oh, a coupl of hours now emailing and on the phone trying to find out how I can get a copy of something that shows these have been IRS accepted. I understand that they have because Alison and Thomas both say that they can see through their magic crystal or something I can't access that they have been accepted. I was told to just call IRS. So I called e-services. Not the right place. I called FIRE; maybe the right place but not the right time, too early in the season. There is also the quirk that one client has 940 and 941 efiles accepted on my computer but on ATX they are still waiting acks and his 1099 shows accepted on ATX but not yet sent and not accepted on my computer. But that's another story... Do any of you have any secret methods to check with IRS regarding the status of these?

You're very welcome. It's a small thing but aggravating and wasteful. And it took me a bit to figure that out in other programs. Glad it's working for you now.

I have never had that problem with scores of those forms. You could try, though, to adjust the margin setting. Go to Print Alignment and try adjusting the top margin and or the row spacing and/or the space between. If there is an extra line, it will throw out a blank sheet.

I have 4 addresses myself but, for business, use only my CPA business email. The point that I was trying to make is that, because I replied to 2 emails sent to me, I was "chastised" for having sent 5 emails. While I thanked the level 2 tech who responded, I didn't realize that one is not supposed to reply by email. It does clearly state to call CS for further assistance but I naively thought email could be more efficient for me. I guess they would rather we wait on hold than accomplish something via email. So here I am on hold for 13 minutes so far because Alison doesn't understand what the problem is. How I can have 2 transmissions accepted on my software but still awaiting IRS acks and one transmission accepted but the ATX website says it hasn't yet been transmitted to IRS.

There was a discussion about random omission of the state returns printing when fed and state were selected. Since I thought it was just me having this problem, it was very interesting to discover otherwise and so I sent an email to ATX to ask about it. I was pleasantly surprised by the quick response, replied and said so and asked another question and replied again to that answer. Since I was also curious about the status of my 1099's (Transmitted to EFC since January), I thought, "What the heck?" and emailed separately about that. Again I was pleasantly surprised to receive a very quick response and replied again with another question. Then I received this, "Thank you for your e-mail to Customer Support. We have received more than 5 responses from this account within a 24 hour period. Additional e-mails sent to support will be received but this will be the last acknowledgement of a successful transmission until the 24 hour period is over. We strive to answer all e-mails within 24-48 hours. Be sure to check the Customer Support Site and the Knowledge Base where you can find the answers to the most common questions without delay. We appreciate your business and will respond with an answer as soon as possible." I don't really care to get a computer generated email saying that my email was received, especially if I have just replied to an email FROM ATX. Duly chastised, I guess I will skip emails along with any phone calls. With the help of you good folks, I'll just keep on keepin' on. But I'm still curious about the efile that shows on the ATX site Accepted and also shows that it has not yet been transmitted to IRS. I received an email explanation the Accepted does mean IRS accepted but how can the IRS accept something it hasn't received? Hmmmm.....

I just sent an email with the inquiry I posted on the efile section of this board. I received an almost immediate!!!! response to send the EIN's and they would be addressed. We'll see what happens. I am MOST impressed with getting an email reply so quickly even if the issues aren't yet resolved. Customer service is really improving.

Thanks, michaelmars! I just did that, uncheck the close print window. That will make it easier when I have to print extra copies of Schedules C and E, for example, to go with local returns.

I have 5 1099 transmissions since January. All say Transmitted to EFC in the status column. When I checked on the status of these at the ATX site, 2 show that they have been sent to IRS but not received the IRS Ack but have been "Accepted." One shows "Accepted" but not yet sent to IRS or IRS ack'ed. This last one was transmitted to EFC on Jan. 22. I, obviously incorrectly, thought that "Accepted" was IRS accepted. Apparently not. Is it clear to others that IRS ack does not equal Accepted and that Accepted does not equal IRS ack? What does Accepted mean, then? And why this inordinate delay with these 1099's? My 1040 are whizzing through!

My favorite erasers are Sanford Magic Rub and the the white, replaceable erasers in my Pentel Twist-Erase pencils that I use exclusively.

I will send in a complaint. As I said, because of the randomness, I assumed it was something I was doing or not doing. Since I am a senior citizen, I increasingly tend to blame such occurrences on my declining faculties. It's refreshing to take this one off my shoulders!

I agree that my individual client acks are really quick. I'm still wondering, though, about the 5 1099's from January 22-27 stuck at transmitted to EFC.

Well dang, I thought it was something I kept doing wrong occasionally because it was random. It just happened today with a Kentucky return. I ended up just printing the state return separately. It's annoying but good to know that it isn't necessarily me.

That was great! I think even better than the original. My mood has really changed for the better now. Jainen, where do you come up with these things? Thanks!

Think Star Wars and the droids - androids. R2D2 was similar in shape to a canister vacuum cleaner and 3CPO was upright, humanoid in shape but upright. You ARE familiar with Star Wars, are you not?

I LOVE this thread! I really needed this laugh today.

The attachment worked fine for me, too. I was trying to help Cientax for whom it did not work. I hope the problem was resolved some way or other.

Did you remember to put in the client's date of birth on the filier's info tab? The penalty, or lack thereof, should calculate properly then.

Try this http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f941x.pdf for form and this http://search.irs.gov/web/query.html?col=a...q=&qt=941xe for information.

That makes perfect sense. I don't keep the books for the rental but will suggest that the client set up the negative amount and apply expenses against it. I think that will make sense to him and also help him remember that he has that money for that specific purpose. Thanks so much. The Credits (Genesis Gift Fund and paid by lender) are under a line that says " Existing loan(s) taken subject to." Any ideas what that means?

No, I don't think you are wrong. The situation here is that the second unit has to be placed into service at the lower of cost or FMV when placed into service. The FMV not only dropped, but the ratio of non-depreciable land to total value significantly increased further decreasing the amount of depreciation available to the client. The appraised value very closely approximates the FMV here because all the reappraisals were done using recent sales in the neighborhood within the month of appraisal. Due to the decline in the economy, the values dropped. I just don't get why the land value appreciated so much but the overall value declined. The auditor's office just said they used a different appraisal firm.

I like your 2 cents. I just think they are being deprived of depreciation on the second rental now that the land has been valued to a much greater percentage than 3 years earlier. I can't figure out any better determination, though. And, as you noted, it is defensible by virtue of the auditor's valuation and the economic changes over time. FMV is FMV... Thanks, again!

Thanks, Bulldog Tom. Are you sure it would reduce the basis if used for improvements? It would seem, since you raised the issue, to increase the basis. I don't know, though. Any insights about the other land valuation issue I posted a little earlier? That one has me stumped!

The client who bought a second property has some strange entries on the closing docs. This is in a poorer neighborhood so he also received $26,993 in rehab money (line 805), Supl. Orig (Reno) of $408.64 (line 807), a Genesis Gift Fund Credit (line 204), and Credit paid by lender (line 205). I'm really not sure how to handle these items none of which have I seen before and none of which are listed in my handy dandy QF p. 7-3. Any help would be appreciated!

A client purchased a 2 family home in 2005. I deducted the value (per auditor's website) of land from total purchase and determined the depreciable amount of the rental by the ratio of square footage. In September, client bought a second 2 family and moved into one unit there and began renting the second unit in the first property. I checked the auditor's website to see if the valuation had changed. It did decrease from $185,000 to $176,440. The real problem is that the land value increased from $9800 to $24,000. I called the auditor's office for an explanation. He said they changed valuation companies in part because of the undervaluation of land by the prior company. So, how do I now value the second unit? The ratios are so different, from 5.3% to 13.6%. It doesn't seem right that the depreciation allocable to the second unit should be so much lower in dollars as a result of the land value and not just the fmv of the property. Thanks for input.