Jack from Ohio

Can someone point me to the regs about the requirement to provide to all partners copies of the 1065 return? Can't seem to find it. I always assumed that all partners were to receive a copy of the 1065. Am I mistaken? This client received K-1s from two different Partnership returns for 2013, and seems to be getting stonewalled about seeing the returns so he knows where this income he supposedly received came from. He did NOT receive any money as stated on the K-1 forms. Any help appreciated.

People give them full reign and never check up on them. It is a common problem. The brokers make transactions to generate commissions and until there is an issue like this, most people are apathetically clueless intentionally.

I need not reply. Your words say many more things that the letters printed.

And the client is unwilling to admit what "something" was. However, the IRS does not care!! Tell him to fess up so you may possibly be able to help him, or simply pay the notice.

Ask a different rep and contact the head of the licensing department at ATX. You will find that my information is accurate. Better yet, why not READ the licensing agreement instead of taking a person's word for it..." Reading = manual data input to your brain.

I take my laptop. It IS a computer and I can do all the things mentioned in this thread, plus hundreds of things that tablets, nooks, iphones etc., cannot do.

No need to track down the returns. The rule is ..."allowed or allowable." Just calculate what should have been taken = allowable.

By my own researched choice, I will not buy a tablet. Any computing device without a disk drive is an over priced gaming machine. Unless you just want to look cool and have bragging rights....

The money went somewhere. Follow the money. If it was rolled over using trustee to trustee, then the 1099R is incorrect. If the "questionable" broker had the money withdrawn with a check written to both the client and the new qualified account, then deposited it, the client would never have seen the money. The receiving investment company would have issued a 5498 showing the investment into a qualified account. This would be on the transcript. However, if the money was put into an investment that was NOT qualified without the client's knowledge, then it is taxable. However, the client would have been receiving some sort of statements from the investment. There is missing information here. Follow the money. Get ALL the facts. Too many gaps...

There is a huge difference between logging in remotely for a short time to take care of a few items and having a second place where you are conducting business. Those are two entirely different things. The second business location requires a second license. Ask for a different rep... This is basic product knowledge 101.

Just call ATX and ask, unless following rules and regs is not part of your business model. Richpaman is NOT correct. You need a separate license for each business location.

I believe that you are in violation of the software licensing agreement. Read carefully. The license is address specific. Your workaround may allow you to do what you want, in this case, but it IS in violation. The software licensing is address specific, just like your EFIN.

GROAN!!! You folks don't give up your day job for a comedy career!!!

All of the above??

The fields are ignored by the IRS.

Do you have a suggestion of a better way to curb the corruption which starts at the top of the agency?

The IRS has cut its own throat by pursuing corrupt and illegal practices and then trying the childish method of hiding. The IRS has been "soaking" the taxpayers of this country for years. Inefficiencies, wasteful spending, stupid and arcane process for choosing audits, etc.. The only thing that officials in a government agency pay attention to is cuts in the budget that reduces the amount of money they can waste. I agree that it makes the job of the IRS more difficult, but if the IRS had been doing an adequate and ethical job, this would not be happening. Bottom line, all of us suffer for the poor way the IRS has been directed and worked for decades that have brought around these cuts. The frauds and tax cheats get away and the rest of us have to pay. FIRE KAREN HAWKINS!!

It was the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT that made the ruling. It upheld the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruling against the IRS. The IRS chose NOT to send it to the Supreme Court. Here is reality. What the courts have ruled and what the IRS, essentially Karen Hawkins, believe are two entirely different things. I heard her speak about the new "voluntary" Annual Filing Season Program at the IRS Nationwide Forum in Chicago. She thinks she is above the law and the courts. She is pressing forward with no regard to the court rulings. Stand by for more "shots" at the un-enrolled preparers from her office.... If she/they could just implement a plan to actually stop the fraud and incompetence, I would be all for it. All that has been done is just political FLUFF.

Changes to Circular 230 made all paid preparers subject to its regs. RTRP was the vehicle to show that you were competent. There were no teeth in the regs for RTRP. The IRS was going to implement further regulations to prevent preparers that had not tested to show competency from preparing certain returns. The Supreme Court stopped all that. The IRS position is the same except they cannot require testing to be allowed to prepare returns.

I thought number 10 was a very good analogy!

RTRP was as toothless as Clarence the cross-eyed lion. No enforcement was ever available. Only benefit was to be able to put the letters after your name, and the IRS was advertising it to the public.

RTRP was exactly the same thing. FYI - If you acquired the RTRP, you do not have to pass the test. Just sign up and continue CPE credits.

YEE HAW!! Another lawsuit about a nonsensical program from the IRS.

Thanks everyone!

Each of my children made that mistake once. Somehow, they figured out that the fun was not worth the certain cost.