Lee B

In the interest of clarity, did your client pay or receive the $ 14,750 ?

It depends on the kind of business, service, wholesale etc.

I took a serious look at it 2 years ago, watched 3 or 4 1 hour webinars. There are a number of mid sized CPA Firms that have adopted it for write up work in collabration with their clients. It seems to be well designed and very functional. My issues with it are: 1. Does not laser print checks on blank check stock. ( Each client would need their own preprinted checks ) 2. Does not have its own payroll module either for ATF or active processing. ( Have to use a payroll partner - ADP & Zen I think. 3. I have my own standard chart of accounts that I have been using for over 20 years. The only way to get my chart of accounts into Xero is to set it up in a excel spreadsheet and then import it. They just purchased a small cloud based payroll program and supposedly will have that available sometime in the last half of 2015.

Minor Clarification which is explained in the article: The one rollover limitation is per 12 month period not per calendar year as the title implies. Example: You cannot do a December 2014 rollover followed by a January 2015 rollover even though the rollovers are in two different calendar years. Sometimes the word we choose to use is very important !

H&R Block looks forward to 2015 ACA boost In an investor conference yesterday to discuss its second-quarter results, H&R Block CFO Greg Macfarlane said the firm is expecting a significant boost in revenue from clients accounting for healthcare policies bought under the Affordable Care Act. He said there is a “pricing opportunity” from the myriad new forms, documents and questions demanded by the measure, and added that it “will only get more complicated as the next few years unravel”. The firm estimates that the number of people enrolled in coverage under the state and federal exchanges will grow to 24m next year; Those who received benefits will have to reconcile the amount of credits they received based on an estimate of their 2014 earnings with their actual income. Kansas City Star

Look at Line 2, Part I of Form 8889 and your question will be answered. It says . . . . . ."Do not include employer contributions . . . . . .

Sorry, it worked on Saturday when I posted it. My conspiracy theory is that someone from ATX took it down after seeing the post on this board. The pdf by itself is more of a talking points outline which was useful in combination with the presenters comments. The next free webinar for ATX Enhancements is scheduled for 3:00 PM EST December 10th. You can sign up on the ATX site under Product Training / Webinars. I thought it was worth knowing where they had made changes even though none of them were big.

What I found to be the most interesting thing was that this was announced as CCH ANNOUNCES THE EXPANSION OF ATX AND TAXWISE on multiple tax and accounting websites.

Because penalties are less expensive than health insurance especially in an industry where you can keep your employees below 30 hours per week.

I just finished watching a one hour online ATX Class about the changes for 2014. First, most of the changes are supposedly in the background to make the program load and run faster and smoother. (We will see ) The changes in the following areas seem to be improvements : 1. Client Letter Preferences 2. Backup Preferences 3. Rollover Changes 4. New Bank Account Master Form, which automatically loads with every return. 5 Manual Backup and Restore 6. Search Features Things of note: 1. The Search Feature now will search the complete Client Database and dashes in the SSN are no longer needed. 2. Help is no longer available on your Hard Disk and will be hosted online. Probably will be an unwelcome change for those who don't have a reasonably fast internet connection. 3. Your setup/installation data is not included as part of your automatic backups. If you look at your Manual Backup Screen on the right hand side there is a column titled "Other Data" and at the very bottom is "Setup Data". You will have to check that box to include your specific Setup Data in your manual backup. Click on this link to download a pdf of the class coursebook. http://download.cchsfs.com/EventsEmail/ATX-ENH-101-W-14-C.pdf Overall nothing really significant. If ATX 2014 just loads faster and runs smoother that's all I want !

Are you asking for "Personal Financial Statements" for an individual or you asking for small business financial statements ? If you are looking for cloud based small business accounting software at a reasonable price, take a look at "Kashoo". I've demoed it and taken several of their online classes, but most of my business clients are larger than this program is intended for.

Sam's Club Offers Insurance Through HIX Because Members Wanted It By Brian M. Kalish December 5, 2014 inShare4 Sam’s Club, the big-box members-only warehouse, decided to offer health insurance to its customers through a private health care exchange because those small business owner-members were asking for it. In October, the retail chain said it was partnering with Aetna to offer health insurance to members through a private exchange to small businesses. “One thing we pride ourselves on at Sam’s is listening to our members,” said John Luebker, Sam’s senior director of H&W Rx merchandising and managing markets during Employee Benefit News’ Private Healthcare Exchanges Conference in New York City Thursday. From those surveys, the two things small business owners requested was getting the right products and second was help with their insurance. For Aetna, working with Sam’s presented “a great opportunity for us to partner and provide insurance to small groups,” said Cathy Gobes, Aetna’s head of private exchanges. “We are in the small group business already, we have a small group exchange and we thought we could private solutions right off the top that would help make a difference.” Although the marketplace is co-branded as powered by Aetna, Sam’s Club is not getting paid in the process and Gobes said it was key that Sam’s Club not be listed as an agent, not licensed, nor selling the product. “We had lots of conversation with our lawyers to make sure that is the case and there is nothing [tying Sam’s Club] to the insurance,” she said. “We have a small share of the [small business] market and this is an opportunity for us to reach another population. “Some might use brokers today,” she added. “We are not trying to work around that, [instead we are] trying to provide a solution.” Sam’s promoted this new offering through a variety of means that they use to reach their members including e-mail and direct mail. Further, they educated their optical and pharmacy staff since they were getting questions by curious small business owners. The program was piloted in Florida in July, launched in October in 18 states, which expanded to 21 states on Monday. So far, Aetna has seen about 2,500 requests for information and 1,000 requests for a quote, of which 500 were qualified. To date, 150 proposals have been sent out with an average employee population of five.

That's only true for 2014 and perhaps 2015. There were anti-discrimination rules included in the Affordable Care Act that applies to all Employer Group Health Insurance Plans regardless of size, but for political reasons, the implementation of these rules have been delayed until some future date, tentatively Jan 1st 2016.

They would both be deductible business expenses for 2014. if there is a "gotcha" in this question, I guess I don't see it. The discrimination rules were delayed beyond 2014 until ?

COPIED FROM ACCOUNTING TODAY inShare23 Washington, D.C. (December 3, 2014) By Richard Rubin Bloomberg U.S. lawmakers, about to pass a short-term deal to extend dozens of targeted tax breaks, know what they’re doing is bad policy. And they’re doing it anyway. Dozens of tax breaks expired on Dec. 31, 2013, and Congress spent the year fighting over them. Now, with just four weeks left in the year, the House of Representatives plans today to punt the whole debate and slap on a new expiration date: Dec. 31, 2014. Tax policy experts say tax cuts like these should be predictable and stable. This plan is far from that, because it means business executives and individuals on New Year’s Day will have no idea if they can take the breaks again in 2015. “We’re going to go back to the uncertainty that plagues the code, the lack of stability that plagues investment,” said Representative Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat. “We have no choice, because there was not the institutional will to do something bigger and longer.” The $45 billion plan set to be passed in the waning days of the session would give windfall benefits to companies for actions they took during the first 11 months of 2014. It would provide businesses with almost no time to take advantage of the breaks before they lapse again. U.S. lawmakers, who earlier this year flirted with the most significant revamp of the tax code since 1986 before abandoning the effort, said they don’t like what they’re doing. They recognize that the short-term deal will force Congress and taxpayers back into the same cycle in January. GE and Wal-Mart The tax breaks in question include benefits for big corporations such as General Electric Co. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., with incentives for hiring workers from disadvantaged groups and for installing wind turbines. Individual taxpayers have a few items at stake, too, including the ability to deduct sales taxes, which benefits residents of states such as Washington and Nevada that don’t have income taxes. The breaks, known on Capitol Hill as tax extenders, have survived for years as a package. They typically are tacked onto more important legislation and benefit from lawmakers’ willingness to vote for a few ideas they oppose while their colleagues reciprocate. A few twists and turns are possible before the House bill, H.R. 5771, becomes law. Obama administration officials have expressed openness to a short-term deal without endorsing the measure. ‘Game On’ Senate Democrats may try to add an extra year of extensions or revive some jettisoned by the House, such as a tax credit that pays for the health care of laid-off workers or a break for plug-in electric motorcycles. “Game on,” Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden told reporters yesterday. How Congress got here is no game. The tax extenders proposal followed a four-year effort by Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Camp, a Michigan Republican, sought to revamp the tax code by lowering rates and eliminating breaks. When that effort fizzled, Republicans tried to lock in permanent extensions of a few of the lapsed breaks, including the research and development tax credit and more generous capital equipment writeoffs for small businesses. Camp and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid almost had a deal last week. It would have made those policies and others permanent while extending the rest of the breaks through 2015. Veto Threat That plan, too, fell apart, victim to a fight among Democrats over the party’s priorities. President Barack Obama threatened to veto the emerging deal because it didn’t extend expansions of the child tax credit and earned-income credit that lapse at the end of 2017. Administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew, contended that the package was tilted too heavily toward corporations and away from low-income families. “Given how bad that was, a temporary deal is a much better outcome and maybe the best that we can hope for from this Congress,” said Harry Stein, associate director for fiscal policy at the Center for American Progress, a group aligned with Democrats that opposed the tentative agreement. Camp and House Republicans then turned to the one-year retroactive bill. “There’s a cliche called half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, and I think that’s where it falls,” said Senator Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican. “You owe it to the people who have expected us to make this year’s retroactive to do it.” Business Groups For entrenched breaks where extensions are routine and bipartisan, such as the research credit, business groups say the gaps are annoying and disruptive without being catastrophic. “Each time we go through this, I think the possibility has become more real that Congress won’t act for whatever reasons,” said Dave Koenig, vice president for tax and profitability at the National Restaurant Association, which backs higher expensing limits for small businesses and more generous depreciation rules . For others, late is almost as bad as never. The tax-break package includes popular tax incentives for people to donate conservation easements—the development rights to land. Those donations require timely appraisals and complicated transactions between donors and land trusts. The incentive would have been made permanent under the bipartisan agreement that fell apart last week. Land Trusts Donors and land trusts don’t want to spend time and money preparing transactions without the certainty that the tax break will be there, said Russ Shay, director of public policy at the Land Trust Alliance in Washington. “We can tell them to go ahead and hope for the best, but they really can’t do that,” he said. “We need two years to get one, and even that’s not long enough for most of our donors. We’re really caught in this and want out in the worst way.” Similarly, a tax break that lets workers set aside more pre-tax money for transit commuting each month has little benefit retroactively. In May, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that an extension of that provision through 2015 would cost the government $180 million in forgone revenue. An extension for 2014 only would cost $10 million. The decision to cut off the extensions on Dec. 31 will create more work next year for the new chairmen of the tax-writing panel, a fact that both of them—Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Orrin Hatch—pointed out yesterday

If you use ATX for W -2 efiling, ATX just creates the W 2 files in the required format. Then it's up to you to run the files thru ACCUWAGE and then transmit to SSA, which requires you to register with the BSO. Registering is very easy to do.

Under Support, select Customer Services Utilities, then select "Re-Download Forms in Marked Returns"

With ATX, you can also efile 94x with a signed 8879EMP on file, similar process to efiling a 1040.

There are so many acronyms nowdays. What is OIS ?

Only 1040 efiling is shut down. If you have an entity return, you will be able to efile for about 3 more weeks.

For a complete analysis read the following article from Iowa State University After reading this analysis everyone will have to make up their own mind Updated: ACA’s Thorny Impact On More-Than-2% S Corporation Shareholders Kristy S. Maitre and Kristine A. Tidgren November 10, 2014 This article (updated November 6, 2014) discusses the Affordable Care Act's impact on more-than-two percent shareholders of S Corporations. Discussed is the ACA's impact on FICA and the IRC section 162(l)(5) self-employment health insurance premium deduction. This article also addresses the potential wide-ranging impact of new DOL Q&As. Overview The issue of reimbursing health care premiums for more-than-2% S corporation shareholders in the wake of the ACA was an issue we addressed briefly during the case studies at our August 22, 2014, Affordable Care Act (ACA) Seminar. Because this issue has sparked a number of questions, we wanted to follow-up with additional information. was an issue we addressed briefly during the case studies at our August 22, 2014, Affordable Care Act (ACA) Seminar. Because this issue has sparked a number of questions, we wanted to follow-up with additional information. Note: This area of the law is not well-defined and the IRS has not specifically addressed the issue. Instead, practitioners have been left to sort out the ACA fallout for these more-than-2% shareholders by reading and applying the relevant statutes and revenue rulings in light of known ACA requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants has requested formal guidance on the issue from the IRS. Until formal guidance is issued, we recommend advising your clients to err on the side of caution. It is also important to point out that the background law has not changed: Background Law To thoroughly analyze this complex issue, a review of the applicable background law is necessary: Taxation of Fringe Benefits Generally Employer-provided fringe benefits are taxable and must be included in the recipient’s pay unless the law specifically excludes them. Taxable fringe benefits are generally included in an employee’s wages in the year the benefit is received pursuant to IRC §451(a). Taxable fringe benefits are reported as W-2 wages for an employee, or as a Form 1099-MISC payment for an independent contractor. Exclusion from Income for Employer-Provided Health Benefits Generally Under IRC §105, amounts received as reimbursements by employees under an accident or medical insurance plan, and under §106, employer-provided health benefits (including reimbursement and insurance) are generally excluded from the income of employees. Included as “Wages” for More-Than-2% Shareholder-Employees of S Corporation Where health insurance premiums are paid by an S corporation, however, IRC §1372(a) requires that the S corporation be treated as a partnership and that any “more-than-2% shareholder-employees” be treated as partners.. Thus, health insurance premiums paid by the S corporation would be deductible by the S corporation as compensation to the more-than-2% shareholder-employee and included in the more-than-2% shareholder's Form W-2 as wages. I.R.C. §162(l) Above-the-Line Deduction IRC §162(l)(5) allows the more-than-2% shareholders the same above-the-line deduction for health insurance costs as self-employed individuals (even though 2% shareholder’s wages are treated as earned income), assuming that all of the other provisions of I.R.C. §162(l) are met. Under I.R.C. §162(l)(2)( B ), an above-the-line deduction is not allowed for any calendar month for which the shareholder is eligible to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by any other employer of the shareholder or the spouse of the shareholder. For the requirements of I.R.C. §162(l)(5) to be met, I.R.C. §1372 (partnership taxation rules detailed above) must apply. In order for I.R.C. §1372 to apply, the S corporation must “establish” a “plan providing medical care coverage.” If the shareholder purchases his or her own health insurance with his or her own funds, a plan has not been “established” by the S corporation, and an I.R.C. §162(l) deduction would not be allowed. In late 2007, the IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which sets forth the criteria for more-than-2% shareholder-employees to qualify for the I.R.C. §162(l)(5) deduction. The Notice provides that a “plan providing medical care coverage” is “established” by the S corporation (and thus allows the shareholder to take the §162(l)(5) deduction) if: The S corporation makes the premium payments for the accident and health insurance policy covering the 2-percent shareholder employee (and his or her spouse or dependents, if applicable) in the current taxable year; or The 2-percent shareholder makes the premium payments and furnishes proof of premium payment to the S corporation and then the S corporation reimburses the 2-percent shareholder-employee for the premium payments in the current taxable year. Note: If the accident and health insurance premiums are not paid directly by the S corporation or reimbursed to the employee by the S corporation and included in the 2-percent shareholder-employee’s gross income, a plan providing medical care coverage for the 2-percent shareholder-employee is not established by the S corporation and the 2-percent shareholder employee is not allowed the deduction under §162(l). FICA Although the health insurance premiums paid by an S corporation on behalf of its more-than-2 % shareholder-employees are included as “wages” for income tax purposes, the value of these premiums has long been excluded from “wages” for FICA purposes. IRS Announcement 92-16 clarified that accident and health payments “made under a plan to benefit employees” are exempt from FICA tax, pursuant to I.R.C. §3121(a), which states as follows: (a) Wages. For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include— (2) the amount of any payment (including any amount paid by an employer for insurance or annuities, or into a fund, to provide for any such payment) made to, or on behalf of, an employee or any of his dependents under a plan or system established by an employer which makes provision for his employees generally (or for his employees generally and their dependents) or for a class or classes of his employees (or for a class or classes of his employees and their dependents), on account of— ( b ) medical or hospitalization expenses in connection with sickness or accident disability. This statute thus exempts from FICA tax liability those payments “made to employees generally” “under a plan or system established by an employer” on account of “medical or hospitalization expenses…” Announcement 92-16 states, “For this exclusion to apply, the payments must be made under a plan or system for employees and their dependents generally or for a class (or classes) of employees and their dependents. Thus, whether amounts of this type are actually subject to social security or Medicare tax depends on whether in the particular case the taxpayer satisfies the requirements for the exclusion.” ACA Impact The above background law has not changed. What has changed is the ability of S corporations to reimburse their employees (including more-than-2% shareholder employee) for health insurance premiums used to purchase an individual health insurance policy without running afoul of ACA market reforms. As detailed in the seminar and in this article, employer premium payment plans (used to purchase insurance other than employer-provided group health care insurance) are considered group health plans that violate the market reforms of the ACA, thus subjecting their sponsors to potential fines of up to $100 per day per employee per violation. That could amount to $36,500 per year per employee per violation. Note: It is important to remember that if an employer (including an S corporation) has only one participant in a group health plan, ACA market reforms do not apply. Consequently, a single-employee S corporation may continue to reimburse a more-than-2% shareholder-employee for health insurance premiums as before. The amount is included in wages, an above-the-line deduction is allowed to the shareholder, and FICA need not be charged. If the company has more than one shareholder, but only one is reimbursed for insurance, that shareholder’s reimbursement may also be treated the same way. As was discussed at the seminar, S corporations with more than one employee (and other small businesses) that have traditionally reimbursed their employees on a pre-tax basis for their individual health care premiums must now either (1) eliminate their health benefits entirely or (2) establish group health insurance coverage for their employees. Note that if the S corporation chooses to offer group health insurance coverage to its employees, the taxation rules for that benefit as applied to more-than-2% shareholders have not changed. The health insurance premiums paid on behalf of more-than-2% S corporation shareholder-employees are deductible and reportable by the S corporation as wages, the payments are included in the shareholder’s wages for income tax purposes, and the benefits are not subject to Social Security or Medicare (FICA) or Unemployment (FUTA) taxes. But may an S corporation reimburse its S corporation shareholders for health insurance premiums outside of a group health plan? Do the same rules preventing this reimbursement to regular employees apply to S corporation shareholders? The answer is that we do not know. The Departments have provided no guidance on this issue. We can only set forth what is known at this point (which is ever-changing). New Department of Labor Q & A Creates New Concern Although they don't reference S corporations or their more-than-two percent shareholders at all (no guidance on this issue has done so), Department of Labor Q & A's released on November 6, 2014, raise concern that the act of reimbursing more-than-two-percent shareholders (outside of an employer-provided group health insurance arrangement) in the manner required under 2008-1 for a section 162(l) deduction may be viewed by the Department as establishing a group health plan subject to ACA market reforms. The Q & A at issue reads: Q1: My employer offers employees cash to reimburse the purchase of an individual market policy. Does this arrangement comply with the market reforms? No. If the employer uses an arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for the purchase of an individual market policy, the employer's payment arrangement is part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee. Therefore, the arrangement is group health plan coverage within the meaning of Code section 9832(a), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 733(a) and PHS Act section 2791(a), and is subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act applicable to group health plans. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments' prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy. This Q & A makes clear that the Department is not basing its determination of the existence of an illegal employer payment plan on whether the reimbursement is made on a pre-tax or post-tax basis. What seems to matter to the Department is simply whether the employer is reimbursing the employee under an arrangement that could meet the definition of a "group health plan." I.R.C. §5000( b )(1) (which sets forth the applicable definition under I.R.C. §9932(a)) defines a "group health plan" as: a plan (including a self-insured plan) of, or contributed to by, an employer (including a self-employed person) or employee organization to provide health care (directly or otherwise) to the employees, former employees, the employer, others associated or formerly associated with the employer in a business relationship, or their families. Given the breadth of the definition, it is arguable that employer reimbursement of shareholder premiums establishes a group health plan subject to the ACA market reforms. Again, neither the DOL nor IRS has set forth guidance relating to S corporations and their reimbursements of health insurance premiums for more-than-two percent shareholders. Arguments can be made to support the continued reimbursement of premiums to S corporation more-than-two percent shareholders so that they can receive their section 162(l) deduction. Nonetheless, the stakes are high. Thus, we believe that the best guidance in the wake of this Q & A is to avoid all employer reimbursements of health care premiums outside of an employer-provided group health care plan, including those to more-than-two percent shareholders, until further guidance is issued by the Departments. This latest communication has affirmed the Administration's clear policy to eliminate such benefits. Conclusion Please let us know if you have any follow-up questions regarding this information. It is a thorny issue that will evolve. We will keep you informed of any further communication we receive concerning the issue. As we know, it is of great importance to you and your clients as you move forward to comply with the ACA provisions. We are hopeful that IRS will issue clarifying guidance in the near future

COPIED FROM FORBES : 11/24/2014 IRS Makes Novel Use Of Outside Contractors---To Audit Microsoft Keith Fogg , Contributor Earlier this year I wrote about the effort by some Senators to revive the private debt collector provisions that expired several years ago. For the moment the revival of that bad idea seems to have lost steam. A new and creative way to use private parties for what seems like a governmental function – the examination of a tax return – has surfaced and deserves watching. The IRS has changed the regulation concerning who can participate in an examination to include private contractors. It has hired a private law firm as an expert. Microsoft appears to be the first examination using private contractors to become public. The issue deserves attention in order to determine if this represents a new and better way to examine complex returns or a capitulation of what was previously considered a governmental function. Today, Microsoft filed a FOIA suit against the IRS seeking to learn more about the terms of the contract between the IRS and Quinn Emanuel, a commercial litigation law firm (the complaint can be found here, along with the required declaration, and Exhibit I.a, Exhibit I.b, Exhibit I.c, Exhibit I.d, Exhibit II, Exhibit III, and Exhibit IV). It appears that the IRS examination team wants to use the law firm to assist it in conducting the examination and has hired the firm as experts. If successful, the FOIA litigation will make clear the precise intentions of the IRS as it moves to a new method of examining tax returns. Those intentions, if they become public, will allow a better understanding of what appears to be a new avenue of removing the wall between government and private contractor in the area of taxation. Hiring private experts in tax cases does not present new or novel issues. The IRS regularly hires experts to assist it in valuing property or other discreet functions where expert testimony or expertise in a particular subject not within the realm of the IRS is needed. To my knowledge the IRS has not previously hired an expert to participate in the examination of a return but rather has hired experts to assist with discreet issues which turned up during the audit. The hiring of Quinn Emanuel in conjunction with the promulgation of the new temporary regulation allowing private contractors to participate in questioning a taxpayer during the examination process suggests that the IRS seeks to try a new technique in the examination of large corporations presenting sophisticated issues that may test the capabilities of the IRS examiners and the Chief Counsel attorneys who assist them. Considering the manpower shortage at the IRS, I wonder if the use of contractors will be expanded ?

BASE is a long time Benefits Administration Provider. Also, you should read the thread I started, "DOL FAQ - . . . . . . . . . . . .

I efiled my 9/30 YE Corporate returns today and received my acks. That's a relief !

Just did a Forms Update and updated program to 13.7, so we will see. As soon as my client signs the 8879C, I will try to efile.