Lee B

Definitely gremlins

"Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Income Tax" "Estimated Future Common Expense Allowance for Real Estate Sales Under Contract" Interesting form, Margaret, how do you even find stuff like this?

Fantastic News! "While this short-term solution is in place for this year’s filing season, the IRS will work closely with partners across government to roll out Login.Gov as an authentication tool. The General Services Administration is currently working with the IRS to achieve the security standards and scale required of Login.Gov, with the goal of moving toward introducing this option after the 2022 filing deadline." Astounding, common sense has prevailed!

Any chance the rollover was to a Roth IRA?

Hmm, supposedly my Secure Access account will be closed by the the end of June.

Billing errors from whom and for what?

This sounds like a confused intermediate step while they try figure out what to do in the long run.

I clear my browser history and my cookies at the end of every day

A few years ago a young client of mine had 3 different state ID in 4 years. First was pulled for DWI. Second was non driving state ID for 2 years. Third was when her driving privileges were reinstated.

If you search online for "bar codes not displaying" or "bar codes not printing" you will find explanations and potential solutions.

You will find lots of explanatory stuff about this online

Our first hurdle is "more likely than not." ( greater than 51 % ) Our second hurdle is "substantial authority." ( greater than 40 % and less than 52 % ) There is not enough support that I would be comfortable taking that position.

Admittedly there is a fair a mount of grey between Business & Commuting Mileage, but the IRS position and the Court Cases have remained pretty consistent for many years: "Recent case: A contractor residing in Manchester, Ohio commuted to five temporary worksites in 2007. The sites ranged in distance from 74 miles to 96 miles from his home. His employer did not reimburse the travel expenses. On his 2007 federal income tax return, the contractor claimed a deduction of nearly $24,000, but the IRS disallowed almost all of it. The Tax Court sided with the IRS because the temporary worksites weren't outside the metropolitan area where the contractor normally lived and worked (Saunders, TC Memo 2012-200." "In 2005 Glenn Patrick Bogue, an independent contractor based in Cherry Hill, N.J., worked on two residential property renovations in Philadelphia and one renovation in Melrose Park, PA. In 2006 he worked on properties in Melrose Park and Elkins Parks, both in Pennsylvania, and a property in Haddonfield, N.J. During both years Bogue lived in a house owned by his fiance. The five work sites were 20.1, 15.7, 15, 14.7, and four miles, respectively, from his residence. He worked at each site for several months and when one project was finished moved on to another site. On his tax returns for the two years in question, Bogue claimed deductions for various expenses relating to transportation to the worksites. The claimed deductions included: Car and truck expenses of $9,232 for 2005 and $9,657 for 2006 on Schedule Cs (Profit or Loss from Business); Tolls of $660 for 2005 and $400 for 2006 as Other Expenses on the Schedule Cs,; Auto insurance expenses of $2,028 and $1,866 for 2005 and 2006, and Car rental expenses of $650 incurred in 2005 when his own vehicle was inoperable. The IRS determined tax deficiencies for the 2005 and 2006 tax years. Bogue challenged the assessments in Tax Court. Tax Court's ruling: The Court denied the deductions for transportation and other auto-related expenses for travel between the residence and various worksites. It found that the expenses all fell under the general nondeductible personal expense rule for commuting costs. In reaching this conclusion, the Tax Court rejected Bogue's arguments that the expenses were deductible under all three of the tax law exceptions. According to the court: The home office exception was unavailable to Bogue for lack of proof that he actually used an office in his residence exclusively for business; The temporary distant worksite exception was unavailable because the worksites at issue, although away from Bogue's home, were within the normal distance/areas where he normally worked, and The regular work location exception was unavailable because the only locations at which he worked during the years at issue were temporary worksites and he showed no other, regular work locations. The Tax Court rejected Bogue's contention that his storage shed, car, bank and various building supply stores should be treated as regular work locations. Furthermore, while the costs of transporting tools to and from worksites, travel to supply stores or travel between worksites themselves might qualify as deductible transportation or travel, deductions for these expenses were denied because Bogue failed to substantiate them. Undeterred, Bogue appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Third Circuit's ruling: In his appeal, Bogue limited his argument to the regular work location exception. He claimed that he met this exception because the bank and various building supply stores he frequented were regular work locations. The court affirmed the Tax Court's ruling, stating that construing a building supply store or bank as a regular work site strained the meaning of work location, noting that Bogue visited those locations as a customer rather than a worker. The Supreme Court hammered the final nail in this case, declining to review it. Lessons to be learned: The IRS is likely to challenge travel-expense deductions that don't measure up to one of the three exceptions. Consult with your accountant to ensure you are on firm ground before you stake your claims. Keep detailed and accurate records relating to any travel that may be deductible."

Is it happening at the print preview stage or before you open the printer dialogue?

In my mind the key difference is the log truck driver isn't driving a personal vehicle and more than likely has a home office.

In my state it's requested but you can decline to provide your DL info with the caveat that your refund may be held up while the state verifies your identity. With my older clients that have years of filed tax returns, not providing their DL info hasn't held up their refunds. I have had several younger clients that didn't provide their DL info whose refunds were held up. State mailed them a letter asking them to call and verify their identity.

I can appreciate the logic of your argument, but I agree with TexTaxToo.

Well with your bar code problems and Dave T's pdf problems the printer gremlins are "wild and crazy"

Or try the low tech approach, Have your client check Where"s My Refund? Next step depends on what Where's My Refund says.

I use the free version. I checked and found it's a new feature of CCleaner Pro which you can try for 14 days for free.

I think Pacun & kathyc2 posts are pointing in the right direction. Do you have non Adobe desktop pdf software? Do you have a browser app or extension for editing pdfs ?

Printer drivers do get corrupted from time to time. If you're moderately comfortable with tech stuff, go to the Brothers website and download and install the current printer driver. If not, uninstall your printer then reinstall letting Windows find and install the driver. The second approach will not install any printer management software from Brothers.

Have you tried printed one of your own pdfs as a crosscheck?

Are you saying that you are going to prepare this client's 1040 without the farm land rental?

I looked at my return again and now I have the same message. My client's NOL Carryforward is large enough that there is no Federal Income Tax due but there is state income tax due. My client does have SE tax due to his Schedule C Income. If the amount of the NOL deducted this year changes when the worksheet is updated then my client's state tax will change. Therefore I will put this return on the back burner until the 2021 version of the worksheet is available.