Christian

I have never felt it necessary to send a test efile message to ATX. However, with all the needed hardware upgrades and the like it occurs to me it may be a good idea. Is anyone familiar with how this is done?

In opening a client return which contains a Schedule C and a few K-1's I get this message. I close the program but the return still does not open after reactivation. Has anyone had this message and does anyone have a solution ? The return was rolled over successfully from 2012. More simple returns rolled over open just fine but this one encounters this problem each time I try to open it.

A client called today to advise that her mother has some 182 matured series ee savings bonds which have matured some time ago. She is concerned that her mother will incur a penalty if these are cashed as many matured some years back. I have had clients cash mature bonds well after their date of maturity and never recall seeing the Service exact any penalty. The client merely paid the tax on all the accrued interest. HOWEVER, I now am given to understand the bonds should have been cashed in the year they matured and since they were not the interest must be applied to the year in which the bonds matured by amending the mother's return for that year with appropriate late filing penalty. Since not a few bonds matured well beyond the three years for filing an amended return this poses another problem. Some years ago the woman cashed in a number of series ee bonds which had also been long matured. The Service did not impose penalties of any kind. Any experience along this line would be appreciated. I rather suspect this is one of those rules which do not get enforced all that often.

Problem is resolved. I reversed some adjustments I made to my security software and this solved the problem.

I update every day. My version is 13.1.1122.1. The program indicates it is up to date and forms are up to date. My earlier returns rolled over open ok with all updated forms opening.

Anyone having any problems rolling over 2012 returns ? Early on I rolled over a few with no problems. Now all of a sudden the program will not roll them over. My earlier problem with the PRS issue is resolved. A message indicates the rollover failed as I did not indicate any other data which is shown at the bottom of the rollover page. I note my rollover page does not have the Last Month/Quarter tab as indicated in the help instructions.

On checking the progress of the 2013 program I update each day. On loading a few rolled returns the old PRS (pay per return) bogey has appeared. Any of you seeing this problem?

Good grief ! My hair was already turning grey !

The fact that the Service can only get a penalty from a taxpayers refund is an interesting point. That being so a taxpayer owing tax need only deduct the penalty from tax due and the Service has no further enforcement powers. I assume that as practitioners we are strictly enjoined from enlightening a client regarding this. :}

A new article in the WSJ by the Attorney General in Oklahoma details the developing legal challange to the ACA by Oklahoma, Indiana, and others to the IRS accessing penalties in states served by a federal exchange. This will bear watching I would guess.

The 2013 software looks to be debugged at least so far. I am pleased not having to move to a new computer at least for now. I had expected that after last year CCH would either ship up or ship out of the tax business and it seems they have spent what was necessary to remain in the game.

Amazing how attached some of y'all get over a machine. In truth I'll keep this old one too as it also has a few items so old I cannot move them to Windows 7 or I am so old and technically unable to accomplish it.

I use it exclusively for internet chat having stopped using it for business quite awhile back after removing ALL tax files. I enjoy speaking with folks from other places and get in a news chat off and on. Since windows is no longer going to support XP it will likely collect dust for a few years.

ATX Supreme Guru is of course correct. The computer had 512 mb and at some point I added an upgrade to 1056 mb or 1 gb. Holiday travel and obnoxious relations mixed my bytes. Alas ! I believe I am right in that the machine cannot use Windows 7 having maxed out it's ram memory.

Thanks for the input guys. It looks as if I may have bought a faster machine which I will not need this coming year. It was not terribly expensive and I can use it for other matters until such time as I may need it. An older machine using Windows XP I have cannot use Windows 7 since it's maximum ram is some 1056 GB so it will need to be retired to the glue factory.

I have downloaded the 2013 1040 program from the ATX website my cds not yet having arrived. Out of curiosity I downloaded it to my older machiine which has an AMD 1.4 Ghz processor although i purchased a faster model for this coming tax year. To my astonishment it downloaded the program and although slow it functions fairly well. It is actually faster than the 2012 version which is loaded on this machine. As my client base is not huge loading a given return a bit slow does not present a problem. I do not fully understand this as we have been advised by ATX to upgrade our hardware. Anyone have any ideas ?

Here in southern Virginia our hams are salt cured and require boiling before cooking. But, they surely are gooooooood !

Virginia has a federal exchange so no availability of medicaid. In looking over the replies I would posit that since the adult daughter has no filing requirement the parents need pay no penalty for her not having health coverage. On the other hand they may elect to cover her as she would receive a credit equal to 80% of her premium.

After looking over the client list I find most of the folks I serve have acceptable health insurance. However, one case in particular has me scratching my head. I have a retired couple who claim an adult daughter and her two minor children as dependents. The children are covered under a federal program but their mother has no coverage. She likewise has no filing requirement. Does this make her father and mother responsible for health insurance on her or does the fact she does not meet the filing requirement relieve her of the need for having it ? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

The Affordable Care Act was intended to provide a tax credit to subsidize private health insurance for Americans with too much income to qualify for Medicaid but no health insurance from their jobs. The law says they can qualify if they buy that insurance through an insurance exchange established by the state. The law does not say that the government can give tax credits to people who get their insurance on federal exchanges (assuming that people can get computer access to the federal exchanges in the first place). But 36 states have decided not to operate their own exchanges. Whether in malice or laziness or incompetence, those states decided to let Uncle Sam build their exchanges. The administration's position is that it was an accident, a mere oversight, easily corrected by the Internal Revenue Service in its regulations concerning the tax credit. Gleeful critics of Obamacare, however, say that it was an intentional oversight, aimed at giving the reluctant states an incentive to start their own exchanges. They have filed suits in Indiana, Oklahoma, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Opponents of Obamacare think they have found the perfect chain shot to de-mast the law. If the government can't give the subsidies, it probably can't enforce the mandate for individuals to have health insurance. Neutral observers, if there be any, probably could agree that the Democratic majority that passed the law intended to give a subsidy to everyone who qualifies. But they would also agree that the IRS can't change a law by writing a rule that contradicts it. They would conclude that the only way out is for Congress to amend the Affordable Care Act.

I don't have any clients who want to deny themselves a tax credit. Rather the reverse.

A recent article I just read indicates what may be a critcal flaw in the ACA. In computing credits for those entitled the law was written indicating only those buying insurance through the STATE exchange would be receiving them. Apparently the drafters did not forsee the establishment of FEDERAL exchanges believing the punitive measures in the law were sufficient to force all states to set up an exchange. The Supreme Court killled this requirement so now they are scrambling to draft an IRS regulation to effect the credits on the federal exchanges. This is being challenged in federal court as the law clearly states STATE exchanges and says nothing about a FEDERAL exchange. I ordinarily would not take note of this but it was in the Barron's issue for this week.

Like all of you I have been watching the rollout of Obamacare. In Virginia we did not elect to set up a state exchange. This kept an expansion of Medicaid in our state from occurring. This being so is it y'all's understanding that low income folks then qualify for credits on the purchase of insurance on the federal exchange?

I recently tried to access their tv site only to receive a notice that I was being redirected. Nothing subsequently happened so I switched browsers with the same result. Any of you have any info on this ? It may be the site is down post season.

I've been setting up my hardware for the coming season and note ATX has advised a shipping date sometime in November. Does anyone know a more specific date?