easytax

As an :aside: The government through the ACA (not political comment -- just stating from somewhere else in the general posts) is helping tax preparers by *** pushing*** people to have a need for practitioners -- to benefit from the ACA. Now some state governments (MD, NV mentioned to show MD not alone but with different reasons) are again "helping" practitioners by allowing "Illegal" parties to obtain government ID's and have same 'privileges" as U.S. citizens (at least in PA it's a privilege, not a right) by simply filing a tax return -- which may ***push*** more people to tax preparers'. Would not these two things be considered "government doing something right" -- therefore the quote "Govt. can't be doing anything right" --- would be incorrect. REGARDLESS of the argument that --- recognizing that something being done illegally by someone can NOW have have "legal" and allowed rights, benefits, etc. --- Our government is "smarter than that" (aren't they?). By the way -- President Regan did say "Govt. was the problem" (can't argue with his facts) but that IS a FAR CRY from a quote of 'Govt. can't do anything right" Here's the quote from an MSN article today: (MSN link led to this URL - http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/237926601.html?page=2&c=y ) NEVADA: Immigrants living in the United States without legal permission can apply for driver authorization cards starting Jan. 2. State officials anticipate tens of thousands of people will apply under the program. MARYLAND: In a program similar to Nevada's, immigrants living in the U.S. illegally will be able to obtain a state driver's license or identification card if they can provide evidence of a filed state income tax return or were claimed as a dependent for each of the preceding two years. Look at the boon we as tax practitioners can benefit from these Govt. ideas. Have a GREAT NEW YEAR !

With one exception here ---- I agree almost totally ==== the exception is where they place in one statement (paraphrasing) --- when over 55 .... but in other statements (paraphrasing) can't decide benefits or costs. care, on age... Help those that need, make people who can pay - pay HOWEVER don't have two different structures because of age of recipient. ALSO don't hide it in the small print. By the way --- prior generations didn't THINK it was a RIGHT --- it was an obligation to take care of yourself and family --- AND ---- take care of those who REALLY needed help but fell short ///// NOT the scammers. Now without rule enforcement --- scammers have nothing to fear and even less worry they'll be punished if even caught.

You are driving down the road in your Corvette on a wild, stormy night, when you pass by a bus stop and you see three people waiting for the bus: 1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die. 2. An old friend who once saved your life. 3. The perfect partner you have been dreaming about. Which one would you choose to offer a ride to, knowing that there could only be one passenger in your car? Think before you continue reading. This is a moral/ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a job application. You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you should save her first. Or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and this would be the perfect chance to pay him back. However, you may never be able to find your perfect mate again. YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS..................... The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming up with his answer. He simply answered: 'I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him take the lady to the hospital. I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the partner of my dreams.' Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn thought limitations. Never forget to 'Think Outside of the Box.' HOWEVER...., The correct answer is to run the old lady over and put her out of her misery because Obama's health care won't pay for her hospital visit anyway, have sex with the perfect partner on the hood of the car, then drive off with the old friend for a few beers. God, I just love happy endings

Do you like to read a good murder mystery? Not even Law and Order would attempt to capture this mess. This is an unbelievable twist of fate!! At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, (AAFS) President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal Complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story: On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a 10-story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to the effect indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the deceased was aware that a safety net had been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned. The room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun! The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Mr. Opus. When one intends to kill subject 'A' but kills subject 'B' in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject 'B.' When confronted with the murder charge, the old man and his wife were both adamant, and both said that they thought the shotgun was not loaded.. The old man said it was a long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore, the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, assuming the gun had been accidentally loaded. The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about 6 weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his Mother. Since the loader of the gun was aware of this, he was guilty of the murder even though he didn't actually pull the trigger. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus. Now for the exquisite twist... Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the 10 story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son, Ronald Opus, had actually murdered himself. So the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide. A true story from Associated Press.

A side note: They may know you work out of your apartment - HOWEVER - you do have "overhead". You may not use the deductions; look at it this way, if you don't charge a "fair" price (whether you see it as cheap or not"), you may not still be doing taxes, etc. very long. Regardless of where you sit (apartment, home, office, park in center city, country - anywhere - you have the same overhead as all of us - except maybe your rent is less 9AND IF YOU DON"T PAY RENT --- maybe you'll be sitting in the "outside". Please review my earlier post on this subject and THINK about all you put into actually doing the taxes for these folks. ---- THAT'S ALL OVERHEAD - it's ANY cost associated with doing what you need to do to render your service ---- EVEN if paid in your normal day-to-day life; like apartment rent, etc. --- you need a place to render the service, so it's not actually free --- unless your the government and don't count in the cost of people, buildings, etc., as they are paid NOT BY the GOVERNMENT but by the people .... Stopping now, before "politics" set in. Have a GREAT ONE.

My suggestions: Yes, I got carried away (again) but this may give you some ideas ... -------------------- This year (as in other years) the IRS has imposed new and additional regulations. In order to avoid “potential issues” I will be spending more time doing “due diligence” on every return. This of course is completed along with reviewing all your relevant data to see where we might lesson your tax bill. My fee is based on a combination of my knowledge, ongoing training and review of the various tax laws and regulations, obtaining data from you along with assisting you in knowing what data could be required with your unique and particular circumstances. The knowledge and assistance parts are in addition to the cost of software(almost always increasing unfortunately, just like everything else)so we can fulfill the IRS's requirements on submissions, etc. All the afore mentioned items don't even include the actual tax form preparation time after reviewing your data and finding if there might be legal ways to reduce your federal income tax burden. As you know, from your activities and profession, they require thinking and planning, the actual "doing" is never easy and "getting ready" for the "doing" can be even harder and take more time than the actual "doing". Just as no two people are exactly alike, including identical twins, no two tax returns are the same. It's one of the blessings and curses of being unique and having to meet requirements of the government. As always, so I can continue to be here to assist you with your need and requirements, my fees are set fairly and accordingly. Like you, I'm in it for the "long haul" and I do want to be here for you, now and in the future too.

The 1042 is for the U.S. person or business to file with the IRS (there is a place for the number of the recipient - NR - but is NOT actually required if the filer doesn't have it). Under MTG 2455 the U.S. payer is responsible if the IRS decides the NR should have been withheld (therefore, withhold, pay to IRS with the 1042 and be safe). The NR will need to figure out what to do with the IRS. Only negative here is the NR may raise rates to offset taxes withheld BUT THAT is a business decision between the parties ---- that doesn't leave the U.S. client in trouble for "not withholding" Thanks for the additional input and yes, I agree, I'd lean toward protecting the "Client" and letting the NR decide to file with the U.S. or not. Thanks.

Had similar with the kids of several clients ---- Moved onus off me (keeps parents happy too --- so they don't get "miffed" and try someone else) by bringing into the tax conversation that -- hey, you're out of school, working , doing your own thing now, making better money, etc.; which they agreed to ---- and then just saying, something like "yup, your really an adult now, so when would you like to go into adult mode with real life fees, it moves you from the "kid - (because of tying into your parents, etc. -- I DO MENTION that fact)" fee to approximately X dollars which is real adult world or actually a bit less, as we've been doing this for a bunch of years, etc.? I can do this year as kid fee and we can move you to adult side next year or would you like to move up now? Either way is OK with me" Takes pressure off if they REALLY hadn't thought about it and saves them "face" if they did but were "using" my generously, etc. Only had a few - wait till next year as most stepped right up and agreed they were adults now. I hate to lose ANY clients I've had for more than a year, as originally I did my "weeding" the first year, if we didn't match or I wasn't willing to accept them, etc. Right now, I'm building but that was due to Medical - those that stayed with me, I'll actually "fight" to keep - they stepped up for me. About 7 of these are "kids" I did my "spill" with (parents stayed too).

I can see facts for both ---- and can't disagree as I don't have the knowledge right now BUT do have a few questions (how I learn); All are from reviewing MTG sections: S/ 2427 defines source income S/ 2429 Connects income with US Trade and/or business S/ 2455 Withholding requirements on NR, etc. 2427 Yes, source income here is directed to Canada --- but would this not be ---- if an employee, etc. ? (see 2429) (Pub 519 (2012) pg. 12 table 2-1 - Salaries, wages, other compensation) 2429 Would this direct a business presence here under this section and if so, would that not make withholding mandatory? (Pub 519 (2012) pg. 17 - Trade or Business in the United States ); (see 2429) (Pub 519 (2012) pg. 12 table 2-1 - Business Income / Personal Services) 2455 Doesn't this make the payer - responsible to withhold and send the 1042-S as mentioned earlier by Taxes? Again, I'm asking so I learn and I don't normally do any NR or have anyone working with someone outside states ----- BUT ----- given the Internet, can see where this might come up for businesses and people getting things like this done as more and more things are going basically virtual work-places ---- so take out the Canada aspect and think Australia, China, etc. as this would/could affect all (maybe).

Basically cost and I prefer forms entry, not data sheet entry. I'm a small practice rebuilding after losing clients while I had some medical items and I have the time. I don't do really stressful returns (no corp., partnership, big small business, only very small - small business) - which means 1040 with maybe some E's and limited investments. Also, been with ATX before it was Saber, etc. and willing to give a second chance. However, I did talk with some senior ATX people, received input from some good people (one on this forumn, especially), had a decision sheet "good/bad" and ATX actually made out OK - IF all is fixed, as described to me, etc. Took the deferred payment plan, as if it goes bad, I'll still have money to buy "other" software and have already told ATX, I'll not pay them balance. My BIG problem will be "which software". Looked at TaxExact and liked it but found from this board -- definitely NOT WHERE I want to go. Time will tell but my ATX 2013 is working, all loaded, up to date, all returns (less than 100) rolled over well and all data there for my ones with depreciation, clients employers, retirements, etc., etc. I'm a stand alone with computers that all meet and exceed minimum requirements and one I used last year that exceeds all requirements. NOTE: Although had problems last year, with my "top computer" (other sat at house but top came with me to medical rehab) I had less than what some others had, so I'm willing to see what happens. So far, so good.

Matt Not an IT person BUT from posts by knowledgeable people here, I have been told that ALL PAST YEARS are different from this year. The ATX 2013 program was written for 2013 and everything done in the past - was in the past and SHOULD NOT be used/tried for the 2013 program. Why/what, etc. I don't know --- but wanted to share what has been told here in past few weeks, etc. You probably have to un-learn stuff done previously and stay with this years instructions, etc. Whole different "ball game" with ATX 2013 --- just because previous years X was done and it worked, doesn't mean tidily this year.

Here's the URL from a "Bing" search for efile logo's: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=IRS+e-file+logo&qpvt=IRS+e-file+logo&FORM=IQFRML You can then choose which one you want and copy it to your computer for other use.

Suggest you do NOT use the AMT from the ATX 2012 as it is still based on data BEFORE the AMT "fix". Therefore (my opinion) that part will not be correct. ATX 2012 v12.19 didn't have any updates to the planner (that I could find), so it's old law and data. Once ATX 2013 releases their new/updated planner, hopefully (we'll have to look at it to be sure - nothings a given yet) that will work correctly -- with all new law and data, etc.. From the ATX board - conversation of 12-04-2013: ATXKristin: The 2013 tax planner will be released shortly after the final instructions for the 1040 and several publications are released by the IRS. Means LATE December at least -- best guess.

All right --- Thus passes the glory of the "big shield" ???? I freely admit I can be dense -- help me out. I'm missing something here as my search only gives - Sic transit gloria mundi is a Latin phrase that means "Thus passes the glory of the world." It has been interpreted as "Worldly things are fleeting." AND Scutum (plural scuta) is the Latin word for "shield", although it has in modern times come to be specifically associated with the rectangular, semi- cylindrical body ...

You know Drake and the NSA are always watching everything --- EVERYWHERE!! I tend to agree with both you and Joel, yes this basically is an ATX board and yes Drake information might be better served on the Drake board, BUT, this section has helped me actually stay with ATX as it gave some good perspectives and information I might have missed on the other boards. Especially information on Drake, TRX, TaxExact, etc. that I definitely wouldn't have gotten on other boards(Drake for instance, as not being a Drake user, I couldn't probably get into). It's kind of like the political section here --- good information BUT if you don't want to know or don't have any interest --- stay where you want.

I agree --- don't have a clue on the 8885 --- (expires end of 2013) and the 1099-H, which I believe pertains to the 8885.. Never had any involvement in either. That's what's going to make the ACA even more fun ---- as I understand it, we really won't have too much to worry with (other than sending clients to somebody to explain it to them) until we start filing the 2014 returns (2013 year). If I'm wrong, please correct me --- as I might be even more lost on ACA than I think I am (tax preparation wise, anyway).

I believe if you set up a PayPal business account (which doesn't really cost for basic account) you can take credit cards not only through them on the internet but they also have a 'gizmo" (don't remember actual name) that they'll give you to use for free and it just plugs into your phone. (I don't have a phone so I didn't get it, so information is just from their offer to me several months ago). www.PayPal.com

Thanks, Yes, at least this tells some detail and helps. Here's the 1099 H - this is used for just if there were advance payments --- still a lot to figure for the other parts of the ACA. Sorry - edit here --- forgot the 1099 and inst. Hopefully the feds will lean toward the easy side (easy to understand too). f1099h_12.pdf i1099h inst.pdf

Since I'm curious (nosy) I went to IRS.gov to see if there was a 1099 HC. There wasn't (figured this was an MA form any way). Found apparently that as a small practice --- I've been blessed ---- as I reviewed the instructions on the 1099 H from the feds and also the 8885 form (feds too). I say blessed because I've never had to file either of these for providers or recipients. Many forms and procedures have "confused" me in the past BUT with patience, study, slow reading, etc. -- I could figure them out. From what I've seen, these (1099 H and 8885) may take a lot of time (for me). Althought that's why many of us started doing taxes --- since we're mostly independently wealthy (like the truckers) Anyway, here's HOPING "Taxed" wishes come true and the feds give us an easy way to work with requirements of the ACA. Happy taxing ....

I can identify with the "Dead Wrong" --- just visit my post on the political section where I started a post referencing snopes.com. And, yes, I've had associates fall into trouble with the Bar Association on what I mentioned above (not tax related associates - one of my other life's).

There is a neat program (prey.com) to track your computer (also other devices) if missing, etc. Three users (computers) free, more you need to subscribe.

Echo all the sentiments above .... Many more Disregard that you're --- reminder date might be --- of Pearl Harbor...

Mr. Pencil, The original post --- I did believe as I DID NOT go back to check what I had originally placed in my database, from when I placed it (several years ago) and as stated "I did the basic search and believe (can't swear as memory not there) that snopes basically stated 'no dockets there between the two' --- at the time, I found there were dockets listed and fully believe the article was wrong when it stated there were no dockets ---- hence I was discrediting snopes outright - not rumor mongering -- stating what I believed FROM WHEN I originally found the article (again, several years ago) and posted it here as fact - again, what I believed - till you showed me I was incorrect (based on what snopes says today at those links). Again, not what I remembered seeing but what is there today -- hence my comments about not relying on one source to confirm facts. As to the Soros comment, I again believe based on a myriad of "impressions" (AGAIN not individually confirmed, in life, people either think good of you or not (from impressions and gleanings of knowledge) many times that can change or be changed by better/different impressions/gleanings, etc. The Soros impression (of mine) is not all good --- not all bad either --- just mine as from my impressions, I do not think he has the best interests for the U.S. and it's people at the forefront of what he does. As Eric stated too, snopes has a good track record and is looked at by many (including me) to separate myth for fact. I just don't use it for politics anymore. No, I haven't checked to see if SOROS has given money or support to snopes, that part was in the past and I don't really care __ but I believed that since I was incorrect on the Obama/Kagan part that I should state -- that I haven't confirmed the SOROS impression either. When I read your reply, I went back and checked the links, etc. and found what you stated (snopes said WMD had retracted, etc.). In my reply, I stated I hadn't checked the Soros comment (verified it) as I tried to explain not just for the Soros comment, but for the posting in general that WHEN originally done (again, several years ago), it was my belief; now after your questioning and comments, it shows otherwise AND I'm agreeing. HOWEVER the point still being that --- more than one source should be checked to assure yourself of information. Sorry to confuse you, that is far from my intention --- as a matter of fact, that's where I "fall down" a lot --- trying to explain myself and all the different ways I think/see things/ look at information, etc. Being a two finger type-er makes it even harder as my mind can be one place but my fingers haven't caught up yet. Eric I pretty much agree with your comments, especially about the discrediting ways, etc. (now I'm not perfect and no party is BUT that's why I'm a registered Repub --- vote whoever is best but definitely leaning toward the conservative repub side). I like those who give sources, not just (impressions) --- again, hence my belief NOW about checking multiple sources (not like I was - even a year ago).

Consider taking "car" out of the question and replacing it with "house", "mortgage", etc. It lends a different perspective. Most are correct here in understanding that a divorce decree, etc. (basically a contract of dissolution) might be enforceable between the parties but would probably need to -- go back to court -- for sanctions, enforcement. However, the decree has no bearing, "weight" on the IRS aspect as far as a 1099 C (a forgiveness/right down, etc. from one entity to another) - it is a total and distinct occurrence. By the way --- please - DON'T tell the attorney -- or your tax/accounting client how to handle (who's responsible, why didn't they do this, etc.) "legal" matters (or even allude to this type of information). I have knowledge of Bar Associations taking many type of professionals to task (practicing law without a license) for similar things. As noted in another post discussion here --- even if right and just an innocent opinion --- can be costly to defend against --- should they raise this question.

You have a point here that also raises (to me) a good question ---- when they get sick and decide to go for insurance ---- will not the insurance companies "have to take them" and now pick up where ever they are? Have a heart attack, get semi fixed -- need open heart to be scheduled later that week, etc. (chose time frame) --- now ---- is not the insurance company on the hook --- can't NOT take them because of pre-existing condition (heart attack, last week). I ask this because some people will say -- I'm healthy, don't make a lot of money, so penalty (eerrr tax, sorry) won't be that much and anyway, I don't get a refund -- so the IRS can't get money from me ---- so go on their merry way. Now they get sick and --- guess what -- they are covered (or can be) --- bite the bullet and buy some insurance. Take it a step farther (yes, I have all kinds of scenarios and know people who would do these things (result of prior life in law enforcement) -- who get the open heart or what ever and now drop insurance UNTIL they need it again???? a couple of months insurance payments might be cheaper than a whole year - yes? Again, anyone have any input on this -- I am really curious (but don't want to be back into insurance and definitely not ACA stuff.