Margaret CPA in OH

Lion, do you then agree that by extending they will meet the PP test in October for tax year 2012? They actually would get a federal refund if so. They do owe state, school district and local tax. State and SD can be electronic but local is paper check. Thanks for the quick reply!

Just when I thought I had it all figured out.... rejected. Family moved to Australia mid-November planning to permanently settle. Husband is on university faculty, nothing left behind, children enrolled in school. Per Pub 54 they technically don't meet either bona fide residence (not a complete tax year) or physical presence (330 days or 12 months). But they will meet PP mid-October 2013 and bona fide residence for all of 2013. It seems there must be a way to exclude the $7000 husband earned in 2012 when he began teaching. Should we extend and wait to file Oct. 10 to meet the 12 months/330 days? Per Figure 4-B in Pub. 54 and explanation on how to figure, it seems that would/should work as they will meet the PP test then but it isn't perfectly clear that the exclusion is valid for the first year as well as the second. If this is the case, I am hoping to file the state and local returns to be done with them as a small amount of tax is due. Otherwise, I hope they can pay with an extension but the local does not handle payments electronically. Thanks for any help!

Ah, yes, say it will be efiled then just send the 9325 showing acceptance. It was kind of easier when all was paper. My transition to pdfs and nearly all electronic apparently still has some things to work out. Let's see if I can remember to do that with the rest of this year's clients. Thanks!

Yes, yes, and, undoubtedly, yes.

Well, dang! This program never ceases to amaze me! I have been using it since tax year 1996 or 97 and I never knew about Client Instructions. Alas, it suffers from the same problem. It cannot be edited to delete the part that says "A copy is enclosed for your records." I don't enclose a copy; they already have the pdf. I am curious, though, about your request to return the 8879. Do you efile before you have the signed copy or do you require payment in advance so receive a check and 8879 together? If so and there is an issue with rejection, how do you manage? Do you also send a fileable voucher when they owe? This could change my process!

Thanks for the suggestion but it doesn't answer my situation. Even with that changed, the verbiage is "..efiled and a copyis enclosed for your records." I don't enclose a copy for the client records. The client has already received their copy when I sent as a pdf for their review and to print and sign the 8879. In prior years I could edit the text to say " efiled and you have your client copy." or some such. Now no text can be edited. I really don't want to completely redo all the letters although I have now done that with the local letters that state they have been efiled which, of course, they have not been. I almost wish they didn't have local letters - I used to want them but with editing capability.

Thanks, KC, but I don't see that actually moving to another place to look for work is deductible. The links reference travel to another place and the travel expenses to and from but not relocating. Surely many people relocate to look for work and don't just travel between. His situation is complicated by the first relocation then actually finding a job in yet a third place. I have some questions out to him and will just have to ponder. Thanks again!

I am looking for some agreement of my analysis of the deductibility of client's moving expenses. I don't want to miss anything but think he is out of luck on a lot of stuff. Client lost job in city A Dec. 2011. Drove to desired new job location, city B, 300 miles away for networking and job hunting. After some promising leads, moved to city B apartment to reduce travel (expenses to move basics) and placed excess items in storage for 8 months. Finally obtained job in city C, 200 miles from city B. Had to get apartment in city C (city B apartment under lease) and stayed in city C during the week, then returned to city B on weekends to continue seeking better job there, I believe. Hasn't yet moved remaining furniture from city A to city C due to space, I believe. From Publ. 521, I think he can deduct only 1 month of storage and can deduct only the cost of moving things from city A to city B but it has been more than a year so maybe not at all. I am confused as to deductible mileage for job search. There is certainly a lot! I feel terrible for this professional at age 63. In the past 5 years he has moved from Ohio to FL to MN to NC in transfers with airline industry HR then was finally 'downsized.' I suppose there are all too many in this situation but maybe not so many with these expenses. Any insight would be much appreciated!

Richcpaman, your method of printing sounds exactly like mine except I print all to pdf. The filing copies I print to the ATX pdf and client copies to Adobe. I then combine the ATX pdf into the Adobe copy, save, then save again with password. That's what I send to clients for their file copy and to review. The difference is that on the 'filing copy,' I pdf print the 8879, Tax Summary, Comparison, and deposit/payment info for client review. The client prints only 8879, signs and returns; I then efile. When accepted, I physically print the 9325, the client letters and mail out those with my invoice. Frequently there are also local returns that must be mailed. If payment vouchers are needed, I include with instructions and a prelabeled envelope. Of course I could do that electronically, too, but think that it is a small personal touch especially for those folks I never see. In any event, they have their pdf client copy, I have the same pdf with and without encryption and the program copy. It really saves, too, when a client needs a prior year copy. Just send the pdf.

See Pub. 54, page 15. There can be overlapping 12 month periods. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p54.pdf

Indiana DOR 100 N Senate Ave Indianapolis IN 46204 35-6000158

I had to have separate federal and state letters with the box checked 'Client letter to display as 'has been efiled.'' I would like to customize to say that the return has been efiled and one copy has been sent to you, rather than a copy is enclosed. Virtually all of my clients have been sent a pdf copy so I don't enclose.

It is the 'missing' recipient address that the error message means. I do have J but the software wants everything in the address as if they lived in the US. Because the address is Australia, there is no US state or zip code, just Australian state and post code. Joan, I first thought the problem was with the bank entry info, too, and tried every thing to resolve this. Then I noticed the message said the error was with the recipient missing street address, city, state or zip, not the issuer of the 1099. As noted, the recipient does not have a US state or zip. It's always somethin'...(Roseanne Roseannadanna)

Crapola! I finally have a bug. On one return I keep getting the same message about the entry I have for one bank's interest. The error (so it says) - Recipient 1: Address is missing one of the following: Street address, City, State or Zip Code. Do you think it's because their address is in Australia (sarcasm here)? The foreign address fields are completed and they had US bank interest. Of course they dont' have a state or zip code in the US. Program bug? Or is it me

Check to see if it is a condition of employment. Our church has a resident caretaker who receives wages but it is a condition of employment to live in the apartment on site. This is not taxable to the caretaker.

In the print manager there should be a list of all your printers. Unfortunately the only one that now shows for the client copy is the ATX pdf printer. What I have been doing is printing the client forms on that one and selecting the copy (with watermark) to print on my Adobe Pro. I then save the client info and insert into the Adobe pro copy then save that copy and discard the ATX pdf. Because most of my clients are electronic, the only client forms I print to send them for review are the 8879, summary and comparison and the efile deposit or payment info to confirm. All else is client copy with watermark. I send as encrypted email attachments. They review and sign and return 8879 and have their copy already. When accepted, I mail the letters, 9325 and my invoice with any original documents (few because most fax to me). Any faxed documents are already pdf as that is how my fax machine is set up; originals have been scanned as pdf's. No paper unless an original W-2 appears and I keep the fed copy as well as the signed engagement letter. Works for me.

Well, we speak differently in different parts of the country, dialects or accents. I would say WTH and to-may-to, you may say WTF and to-mah-to but we all mean the same thing or mostly. It also depends on the intensity of emotion at the time of expression - at least in my case

I am so glad that I am not alone; I was beginning to feel a bit of paranoia but also boatloads of sympathy for so many users, long time board friends that don't deserve the troubles encountered. I do hope good things are in the near future. Mostly I hope this board remains no matter what software folks use. Y'all are my back office, my front office, my water cooler buddies, my consultants, and my friends.

I must be the luckiest ATX user ever. I just timed the program to open - 11 seconds; a very basic return - 4 seconds to open, 3 to close; a complex return (5 rentals, Sch. A,B,C, 8812,2441,8332, state and 2 locals - 22 seconds to open, 4 to close. Intel i5 and 8 GB ram and I don't even know what some of those other things mean. I have had no printing problems, just some annoyance at not having Adobe Pro for filing copies and lack of easy editing capability on letters. What am I doing differently from so many others? Oh, yeah, living right

Things that run faster than ATX software FasterThanAtx.pdf

I printed it out to show my husband. This doesn't have the color but you get the message. Oops, tried to attach file, will try again.

That's a great idea, Jim OH Bkkr. She has a companion caregiver that takes her on errands and lunch so this could be an outing. I will provide her statement from 2011 and her passport for id. Do you think she would need her birth certificate? I have a copy in the safe deposit box. Meanwhile, I think I will also pursue the mailing option just in case. Obviously if there is a long wait, she won't be able to hang around. And I can get a good guess from the other data mentioned by Terry in case I have to extend. Thanks all!

Thanks, chadlonetree, for additional information. The guide to which I referred is nondenominational and a publication of Christianity Today by Richard R. Hammar, J.D., LL.M, CPA. I provided the court cases to stir additional research by the OP and in no way intended it to be a definitive answer. The passages I took were a small portion of about 3 full pages. I agree that the OP must check with the specific denomination and determine what, exactly, the 'tithes' constitute.

99 year old client moved in October and didn't notify SSA (okay, I manage her affairs and I forgot). How easy/hard is it to get a duplicate form? The fomer assisted living place usually forwards the handful of mail that came but missed this, I guess. Thanks and please don't judge harshly my failure until you have moved a 99 year old. It ain't easy covering all the bases!

In my handy dandy Church and Clergy Tax Guide 2013, the lengthy discussion re Forbes v. Commissioner, T.C. Op. 1002-167 (unpublished) states that it would be a deductible business expense for SECA purposes to the extent of "the income she receives as a result of her position as a minister. Because it is a small TC decision it cannot be cited as precedent, however. I IRS 2009 audit guidelines, it's a little murkier with acknowledgement of 'small annual renewal fees' being allowed and rejecting the Forbes decision. There is more but Pixley v. Commissioner there is also the issue of secular earnings. Overall the suggestion is that 'ministers who treat contributions to their employing church as a business expense are taking an aggressive postion that is now more likely to be scrutinized and challenged.' FWIW