Gail in Virginia

And some banks will not accept the payment if both parties names are on the ACH but only one is on the account at the bank. Or so I have been told. They probably don't want to be in the middle of this either.

Could you explain what you mean about the check cashing place and the holder in due course issue?

And taxpayer could have been farming and had a loss in one of the base years. I don't think having income in all base years is required.

Happy New Year to you all! I know that I am late to the party, but I want you all to know how much I enjoy everyone on this board, and rely on your wisdom and experience, and kindness in sharing it!

I remember a former boss of mine told me one year that he had resolved to eat more and enjoy it. He was making fun of all those failed diet resolutions in his past. About half-way through the year, he admitted that was a mistake - he was actually keeping that resolution and had gained 15 pounds since New Years!

The problem is that the people who do this aren't actually getting "refunds" they are getting money they never had - EITC and CTC. So if the government (you and I) wants to give them "free" money and the cost to get it comes out of the "free" money, they don't care. This is one reason I have never liked EITC. I have a whole list.

According to SSA Retirement Planner: If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit. For 2017, that limit is $16,920. In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit. In 2017, the limit on your earnings is $44,880 but we only count earnings before the month you reach your full retirement age. Note: If your earnings will be over the limit for the year but you will be retired for part of the year, we have a special rule that applies to earnings for one year. The special rule lets us pay a full Social Security check for any whole month we consider you retired, regardless of your yearly earnings.

Generally speaking, once you have e-filed you can't e-file again. I don't know what would happen if they tried to paper file; JH, etc. isn't going to see any refunds if they qualify for EITC or CTC until after 2/15 as I understand it.

We have a portable generator, with the cutoff switch/panel that Catherine describes, for our house. By judicious switching as needed we can run the well pump, freezer, refrigerator, furnace and lighting that we need. My husband can even watch television if the cable did not go out when the power did. We have had the same generator since 2000 (for some reason there was a really good sale on generators that year, lol.) However, my parents are in their 80's and their back up heat source is a wood stove. I am trying really hard to talk them into an automatic, permanent generator. I don't think either of the them needs to be worrying about putting gas in a generator, or pulling the cord to start the motor. And since we leave more than 10 miles away, I don't want to have to try get to them in a bad storm. But they are used to the way things are and I may never talk them into changing. And we don't have that many multi-day power outages.

We have had an HP LaserJet P2015n for over 10 years, and it has been great. It is starting to show its age, but it has been the main printer for 3 people in our office, so I am not surprised. The 2055 Lion refers to is very similar. The front opens to provide a tray for miscellaneous items like checks or envelopes, and I never have a problem printing either through that bypass tray.

It would never happen, but I am so tired of being the unpaid auditor for the IRS that I dream of all professional preparers deciding one year that they just aren't going to put up with this nonsense and quitting. I don't think the system can get along without us anymore, and I would love to have a strike to force the IRS to acknowledge that. Aren't any of our professional organizations doing anything to fight the IRS on these onerous due diligence requirements? If I ask my client about their circumstances, I should not have to make them prove their living arrangements and their children's living arrangements to me. Just my rant for the day.

I am cautious about bundling too many things into one basket for the reason you give in your post. I don't want to have to change tax software because of issues with the portal service went up, and I don't want to have to change portal services because of issues with the tax software. And price is not the only issue.

Merry Christmas!

Pacun, I don't think any of us recommend talking bad about the previous preparer. But anyone, no matter how knowledgeable or careful can make a mistake, and the best of us are preparing returns based on the information that we have at the time. I don't check the prior year's return for errors as such, but I do like to review the prior year return for information purposes. And if I see something on the prior year return that does not fit with what I understand to be the case on the current year return, I feel that I have an obligation to ask questions. And in the course of asking those questions, I sometimes determine that a mistake was made on a previous return. Once I know that, I feel obligated to explain the error to the client and let them decide what they want to do from that point.

I don't think they exactly get to double dip that way, Lion, and the $100/day penalty is not repealed but there are exceptions now. I still don't know the details and how it will affect employers exactly. I do know that there were some unintended consequences and this is one that is being addressed. NATP has a webinar scheduled for Monday and Tuesday to explain the Cure act if anyone is a member and would like to learn more about what the legislation actually says.

I just thought I would confuse the situation. You can elect, on the final 1040 for the decedent to report all of the savings bond interest on their personal return. Sometimes, depending on the other income on that final 1040, this can be a significant savings. So you might want to consider amending the 1040 instead and reporting all of the interest accrued through date of death (which might be all the interest if the bonds have ceased to earn interest) instead of going to the 1041.

I saw something about this as well. I think that it is in the 21st Century Cures Act and eliminates the penalty for employer's who reimburse their employee for health insurance instead of having the employee on their group plan. But i only recall a mention of it and no details about how it works or what effect it will have on people who have done this in spite of the regulations for the past two years. I too am anxious to see more.

I appreciate the warning!

Judy, I think that I did the application for reporting agent some time ago, but right after that the account that we were going to do that with changed hands and we never actually did anything as a reporting agent. So that might be the difference.

Judy, I just completed the application. So I don't know what the problem is. But thanks for the reminder that I needed to do that.

Have you looked at allocating part of the APTC to the children? It is my understanding that the 1095 can be allocated in any manner agreed on by the parties involved. With the kids income as low as it most likely is, if you allocate 25% to each kid and 50% to the parents, how does that affect their bottom line tax wise as a family? Or if you give more to the kids and less to the parents? Or less to the kids and more to the parents?I think that you may have an opportunity to save them some money based on the allocation chosen.

I usually at least look to see if I can tell what they were charged for tax preparation the year before. Just for information, not necessarily to decide what to charge this year.

I like espresso and kittens.

I am sorry for your loss, but I am glad that things are going well for you otherwise in retirement. Although, with that many animals to tend to I am not sure that qualifies for retirement.

I usually tell the client that the IRS is more understanding and helpful if the taxpayer talks to them rather than a paid professional, and that therefore they should call personally to set up an installment agreement.