Margaret CPA in OH

That last question is 'iffy.' I am reading it occasionally but not 'using' it. I voted Yes because I have looked at it.

Oops, I did not look in the correct place. I just checked the community thread, not the welcome. Sorry!

Just catching up here a bit. I wanted to see KC's reply for myself. Would you believe it has been excised? Disappeared? Deleted? The funny thing is that there is another comment that references her reply and is not particularly flattering either. Wonder how long it will be left alone...

How did you find out? Did you receive a special invitation? I feel definitely left out...again!

I just got off the phone with Gina at ATX who is really digging into an unack'ed 941 issue for me. This has been validated since Feb. 18th. Despite assurances from Jindy (March 5), Mandy (March 8), Tabitha (March 13), and Taracha (March 17), I am still nervous about no actual IRS acknowledgement. Gina caught William Tasker just as he was about to leave. He will copy and paste the IRS ack and send to me in an email!

I asked her his status and she didn't really know. We had a chat...

I think the point was less that they no longer supported the 2003 program but that all previous clients were purged. I am fairly certain that most folks who use software that changes annually or even periodically loses support after the next 2 or 3 revisions. But purging all previous clients? That seemed harsh and certain that those previous clients would never become repeaters...or even wanted!

She was able to reinstall on another machine apparently, though.

This is a great topic to raise just now for me, too. I have just a couple of clients that somehow convinced me to handle their payroll and I WANT OUT! The problem is that the services charge much more - meaning I charge not nearly enough! And my clients really can't afford much.

I will be watching this for comments. If the clients can do their own input and I just monitor, that would be the best, I think.

This is interesting news, indeed. They have done some other real damage, though. I subscribe to TaxMama and just received the following:

Yesterday was just crazy. We have a couple of people for whom we

need to prepare 2003 returns. And the 2003 ATX Max software we

were using just flat-out wouldn't work. And it wouldn't

uninstall so we could remove it and start over...and...anyway,

a quick, straightforward return ended up eating up the whole

morning. And I think I snapped at a couple of folks who happened

to call at just the wrong moment - just when ATX, which is now

owned by CCH /Wolters Kluwer - just got through telling us our

account is no longer supported. They have purged previous

customers from their database!

I haven't heard of a tax pro software house doing that - ever.

Whenever I've called a previous software house to get support

on prior software, they still had a record of us.

With so many more tax professionals helping people with unfiled

years, it's simply unconscionable for tax pro software houses not

to support prior year customers.

I don't know the extent of her subscribers, but I do believe in the adage, "If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!" I suspect this will turn out to be another blunder on the part of CCH!

After about an hour altogether on the phone today, I was assured by Taracha that the validated date stamp will carry the day with IRS. My story (and I'm stickin' to it):

941 submitted 2.18 and validated by EFC on 2.18.

With no response for days, called 3.5. Jindy said she would look into it and call back.

With no response for days, called 3.8. Mandy said there was no response from EFC so Jindy didn't call as there was nothing to report. Mandy would follow up.

With no response for days, called 3.13. Tabitha said Jindy would have to call me as she started the case. Tabitha would send an email to Jindy who was not in.

Bottom line: EFC powers-that-be via Taracha say that the validated date will work. Good luck!

With no response for days (notice a pattern here?), called 3.17. Taracha (I swear I am not making up these names), at my urgent persuasion, called a supervisor who called EFC who said the validated date stamp (in my case, Feb. 18, would be good whenever they figured out what the problem is with this puppy. I not so very kindly expressed my very real displeasure at being reminded over and over again while on hold that I could check on the internet with Taxwise.com to resolve the issue.

Thank you, Bob. Just what I wanted to read!

Does anyone out there know about this or at least have an opinion?

Uh oh, that was probably the wrong question. Many of you have opinions about many things, all interesting and erudite, no doubt. What about this particular topic?

A client cashed in his traditional IRA originally funded in 2001, probably for 2000. He did not file a Form 8606 at the time and did not deduct it ($2500) on his return for either 2000 or 2001. Is a position that it was not deducted then so should be treated as a nondeductible IRA contribution and therefore basis in 2007 and deducted from proceeds "more likely than not" to prevail? He has a statement from the broker showing that it was an IRA contribution and his tax returns filed do not have the deduction.

For what it's worth for discussion, the tax difference between fed and state is about $1,020.

What about the "frikken" bananas? Weren't those the originals! I don't remember seeing the "c" before, but then, these days, I don't remember a whole frikkin' lot! (Frikkin is a variant of frikken.)

Thank you SO very much! I have downloaded it to experiment assuming I will have ATX again (not positive). I chose to use a generic organizer this year instead of the awful option left to us. Nearly all of my clients, even those who never used it, have expressed how they miss it and don't like the new one.

I sent out my organizers and engagement letters Jan. 2 so this is too late to use for 2007 but I commend you heartily for your efforts!

Thanks, Cathy, for a real belly laugh! I'm still chuckling...

I just completed a similar situation. I prepared nominee 1099INT and 1099DIV for the amounts that went to the siblings. Then when entering the divs, etc. on client's return, input the amount nominee'd out with that code.

You are correct. Not all school districts have an income tax. The client should know whether or not s/he lived in such a district, though.

Thanks to the good folks here, I can answer that! Form 8853, Section C on page 2. I presented that very issue last week with prompt and helpful responses. Youi will need some additional information to complete it but should be doable. Good luck and glad I could help by passing along help I received.

Thanks, JRS. I always go to IRS and search pubs, forms and instructions before asking questions. I have read the information you kindly provided but still don't know the answer to my question.

It turns out, the daughter's online school does, in fact, have campuses and the online courses are optional so she's good. And we can substantiate that her qualified expenses exceed the amount of earnings shown on the 1099Q. The remaining issue is that the 1099Q is in the mother's name and the box is checked that she is not the beneficiary. So I decided to input on line 21 (thanks to elfling for the "hop to" for input) then back it out as spent on qualifying expenses, see Form 8863. I just don't think mom should be taxed on the earnings when the money was properly spent. I did advise to have further withdrawals in daughter's name.

And it turns out the son is out of luck as he doesn't qualify as a dependent and has to file for himself. His income is too low to have any benefit from education expenses.

Thanks again to all!

I was, of course, being facetious in the extreme. At least I have become very comfortable with my "handsfree" feature on the phone. I'm just not sure whether I prefer that over the headset, though.

Thanks so much to all of you. The related problem isn't clear. Mom withdrew money for son who turned 24 in 2007 so is no longer a dependent and daughter who in taking classes from some internet school. Mom is upset, to say the least, that she cannot take son as dependent and that daughter's schooling doesn't qualify for education deduction/credits.

There were distributions all in her name. I am certain that the money went for tuition, etc. If it went for the son who is not dependent for 2007, does it matter that the 1099-Q is in her name, not the designated beneficiary? If it went for daughter's expense, I think that means it wasn't for qualified expenses so all the earnings would be taxable to the mom, right?

I will look for those Prop. regs. I had already tried to find info on the form but only got the form and instructions on preparing it, not how to report. Thanks again!

Recently I had my first 1099-LTC, now I have a 1099-Q. Where do I put the numbers?

Hooray! I finally got my January 1099s accepted! I can breathe....

But about that Feb. 18 941, though.

I love that expression! I've used it, and more, myself many times. Unfortunately I was unable to share your pain with Bob. I had him on the phone at 9:30ish this morning and he had long since hung up by the time your plea arrived. But thanks for the warning about the issue. And, um, you have contacted tech support, right? And they will get back to you in 48-72 hours, right? Good luck!

As I explained, I tried first to update through the program with Manual, then with Automatic. This is the way I have been updating for years and so far this season with excellent results. I was astonished when, after each attempt, I tried to synchronize and repeatedly got the message that I needed to update the program to vs 39. Only then did I resort to going to the download area on the website. Except for one time maybe 4 or 5 years ago, I had never done that but did remember that the method existed.

Given the incredible permutations that various users have been having with updating programs and forms, receiving acks, sending efiles and other issues, I think it's almost each for him/herself trying whatever works! It could be that Marilyn and I were trying to update at the same time and her connection was blessed and mine wasn't. I will continue to update through the program as in the past unless I get a message that it isn't working. Then I will try something else.