easytax

Fed ak's and waiting on states BUT transmitting and working.

See, get me anywhere there is sweet tea, bbq pork and some grits and I loose all sense of nick names (or where they belong). Although as good as NC and TN pork goes, you can NOT beat good Amish barbeque anything (including sweet slaw)!

That part I can do --- it is creating the Variables and adding them to that list on the side I can't figure out.

Especially since most courts want 12 pt. at a minimum in any submissions. But when was/is government consistent? Anybody having any luck/expertise in creating "variables" for the insertion in the letters? -- I can not figure out how and end up just creating a different letter template.

Sound correct ---- after all --- is she not in the TAR - hill state?

Dan, Until you asked, all was good -------- now (according to IRS) there computers are broken and not accepting (info cover in another post) ------- apparently we are both born under the wrong sign . It should be fixed tomorrow --- happy filing then, should be no problems with ATX --- at least so far.

In seven days --- Remember to pass this on -------

For those who like the ideas here --- here is another that will "blow your mind" with versatility: It is an youtube video from altwork: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHdShyF9x7U&feature=player_embedded If you do not want to click link you can visit altwork.com to have a different starting point. Yes, it seems pricy to me BUT maybe not, innovation at start costs.

Email is allowed --- BUT --- make sure you encrypt. (pfill.com is a good encryption program - my opinion). Snail mail is OK but as the name says ---- slow. Just do not fall into the "I sent it, please file, etc." -- make sure you have the signed copy before filing. Chance of being checked on this is slim --- unless you have my luck -- then it WILL happen. Fax is OK too, you just have to worry that you received it and it was not sent somewhere else. Also, you can use programs such as "dropbox" or if you want, try cubby.com . Good season

Isn't this something like a royalty? I worked with an engineer who outside work received a patent that he then "licensed" to our employer and they were totally separate payments. One does not affect the other. Would this not be the same, he is doing a separate and distinct offering from the business. Also, just like Paul Newman did with popcorn -- he licensed his image, name, etc. and was NOT (as I can find) an employee, even though an "owner" too.

15.2 done with some filings --- no problem 15.3 loaded, no problem and some filing done ---- no problem

Yes, THIS can be deleted -- if I stepped over the line //// BUT I will be the one to go there -------- MAYbe, she was hitting on you (those looks could have been -- not out smarted IRS but -- what do you think??). MAYbe, she was looking for ways o decrease her tax prep bill???? Alright, I am done --- anybody want to holler at me, feel free --- no charge...

If interested register at cpaacademy.org . Sorry, did not know how to format differently (just copies, etc.) IRS PRESENTS: CIRCULAR 230 - DILIGENCE AND COMPETENCE NEW ETHICS COURSE! ONE DATE ONLY! Thursday, February 4, 2016 1:00pm ET - 12:00pm CT - 11:00am MT - 10:00am PT FREE - Earn 2 hours of CPE/CE Webinar Description This presentation will review provisions of Circular 230 related to diligence and competence, including discussion of key principles and their application in discipline cases considered by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Presented By Stephen Whitlock Director of Office of Professional Responsibility IRS Stephen A. Whitlock is the Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility. Steve previously served as the Director, Whistleblower Office where, as the first to hold this role, he oversaw development of the program, set policy and provided oversight for Service action on information provided by whistleblowers. Prior to that, Steve held the position of Deputy Director, Office of Professional Responsibility where he oversaw the conduct of attorneys, CPAs, enrolled agents, enrolled retirement plan agents, actuaries and appraisers who practice before the IRS under Treasury Circular 230. Steve also served as the Director, Commissioner’s Complaint Processing and Analysis Group, which designed and implemented a plan for the new organization to receive, monitor and resolve complaints and other correspondence from or about IRS employees. Prior to joining the IRS, Steve held numerous leadership positions within the Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Defense. Steve holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Auburn University, a Juris Doctor degree from Catholic University, and a Masters in Business Administration degree from George Mason University.

Received an email from Tenenz (aka as Tax-Aid Eagle View) on filing/e-filing 1099, w2,aca and such forms. These are good people (I have not done business since 2011 due to medical BUT they have always honored their word and gotten everything done that they have advertised, etc.) so, please consider them for review. So EZ On-line 1099 and W-2 Filing as Low as $1.05 - TENENZ, Inc. -- done manually (womanually probably too ) excel, QuickBooks, etc. Here is link to their info site for this: http://www.eagleviewfiling.com/services

I have basically shied away from answering "insurance" questions as pertains to the ACA. Do any/many of you assist your tax clients in deciding what might work best fro them? Again, I am "license shy" as I was licensed but gave it up years ago and wonder if, like practicing law without a license would make a lot of waves, if insurance "advice" might not be similar? Therefore --- how do you handle things such as these? Below is an MSN article on how some people with mucho assets have structured their income to be able to receive the subsidies for Obamacare. Interesting that their doctor was instrumental in suggesting this ----- HOWEVER ------ if the law allows .... Even in "past lives" I have always believed that -- do NOT discredit the ones who use the system --BUT -- the system for allowing it to be done ---- FIX the SYSTEM!. But then we go into politics and such, so stopping here. Here is the link to the article (Millionaires get subsidies for Obamacare): http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/these-millionaires-get-obamacare-subsidies/ar-BBoMdtG?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=U147DHP

This is interesting --- follow along here --- technically BOTH are correct. IRS wise, Randall is correct. If you read the ACA (not really advised --- lot of headaches, etc.) they require in their description of "minimum essential coverage" that labs and such OUTSIDE the hospital be covered at no cost, etc. and a lot of other side factors here. Medicare part-A only covers HOSPITAL (inpatient (admitted only - NOT under observation ///but that is another discussion) and NOT out-patient) so VERY technically part A by itself and definition of the ACA is NOT -- minimum essential coverage. HOWEVER the IRS "lists" Medicare part A as being acceptable as minimum essential coverage ---- so //// Randal is correct for our purposes. Interesting that the "law" and what is allowable can be (/s) different when the government wants. Keep taxing and stay "the good preparers" NOT the ones the government says take advantage of the //poor public//.

This was from an advert wanting me to join their "tax" organization. Just wanted to know about the facts stated as they do make sense BUT have been (from other sources) given to be "understood" incorrectly. i.e. the $100 day penalty should an organization reimburse the employee for medical coverage, etc.. The "previous" IRS allowance of the circumstances since the ACA (being written by, interpreted by multiple agencies) makes PAST PRACTICES open to a different understanding today. An example might be --- here in PA, many construction firms going along nicely with -- independent contractors -- as interpreted by IRS standards /// BUT /// with the DOL (department of labor) independent contractor standards the "OLD" way of doing things is/can cost a lot of money ---- because the "standards" are quite different and the IRS is starting to go toward using the DOL standards. Even without the source (writer), the facts are either correct or not ---- whoever wrote this has no bearing, as I see it. I just want to know correct or not. I do not do enough business returns today (going toward just 1040's due to some medical limitations - do not need the fuss, etc.) to know and just do not want to guide anyone incorrectly, should they ask. Hence my inquiry here. I trust this board (also the person who sent the advert) and the board neither gains or loses something with their review.

Alright KC --- HOW -- did you get into my computer and get my selfie?

Thought I finally understood and do not use the reimbursement plans for employees (even sole prop.) because of the ACA $100 a day per penalty. This applies to sub S, etc., anything that basically does the reimbursement route, versus having a 'proper" (ACA approved plan). Now an article from a knowledgeable source states otherwise (as I read I, anyway). Any help in seeing if I am reading/understanding it incorrectly would be appreciated. It is a bit lengthy but I figured, better here than asking you to go to a link. I basically agree about the "wrap-around" approach if you have an ACA approved policy in place, etc. BUT the employee reimbursement part -- STILL has me wondering/worrying. ----------------------------- excerpt follows ---- ad and identity parts removed -------------- LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS. A marketing example was mentioned of a client using a medical expense reimbursement plan to write off the cost of her daughter’s braces as a business expense (rather than a regular itemized deduction subject to the 10% floor on medical expenses). It was then asked something to the effect of this: “Doesn’t the Affordable Care Act make medical expense reimbursement plans illegal and impose a $100/day fine on employers who use them?” First, a little background. A Section 105 medical expense reimbursement plan, or MERP, is a long-established benefit plan dating back to 1954. The MERP lets an employer reimburse employees for any eligible medical expense they incur on behalf of themselves, their spouses, and their dependents. Typically, companies that adopt a MERP will buy group health insurance for their employees, then establish a “wraparound” MERP for expenses the underlying insurance doesn’t cover. Alternatively, some employers will “self-insure” and dispense with group insurance entirely, paying costs directly out of pocket and saving the cost of an insurance company’s profit and an agent’s commission. A MERP can cover anything that would be deductible as “medical or dental” under Code Section 213. It can also cover any type of health insurance – individual policies, Medicare and “medigap” premiums, and even long-term care coverage. This is all well-established, black-letter law. Over the past few years, group health insurance has gotten more and more expensive. In fact, it has gotten so much more expensive than individual policies (because insurers can underwrite individual coverage) that some employers are the saying the heck with group coverage, dissolving their plans, and buying their employees individual plans. I can’t tell you how many clients have asked, “My client wants to get rid of his group policy; can he set up a MERP and use it to reimburse employees for their individual policies?” And the answer, until recently, has been “have at it!” I’ve seen this sort of substitution cut plan costs in half or more. It really is amazing. But now there’s a new rule that has upended that perfectly valid (and effective) strategy – courtesy of our newest BFF, the ACA. The ACA says, among other things, that health plans can no longer impose annual limits on benefits. This is part of what the law calls “market reform” provisions, and for most providers, it’s no big deal. Insurance companies have eliminated their caps on benefits, priced it accordingly, and called it a day. Everything was fine until September 13, 2013, when the IRS issued Notice 2013-54. This is the most confusingly written piece of government “guidance” I’ve encountered in my entire career. And it takes direct aim that the individual premium reimbursement strategy I just outlined. The Notice says that if a MERP “wraps around” a complying group health insurance policy, it will be considered “integrated” into that compliant plan for purposes of meeting the market reform requirements. However, if an employer uses a MERP to reimburse an employee for the cost of individual coverage, that MERP will not be considered to meet the market reform requirements. Now, this makes no logical sense at all. The IRS says that a using a MERP to reimburse the cost of individual coverage is treated as imposing an impermissible limit on benefits (specifically, the cost of the reimbursement). This is true even though the underlying individual health insurance policy being reimbursed has no annual limit on benefits! But even though the ACA itself runs over 2,400 pages, apparently there’s no room for common sense in the IRS interpretation. Here’s where the worst of the misinformation comes in. An employer who offers a plan that doesn’t meet the market reform act provisions is subject to an excise tax of “up to $100 per employee, per day.” Somehow, the insurance industry, along with their willing accomplices in the financial press, have turned that tax into THE WORST THING THAT COULD EVER HAPPEN TO YOUR CLIENT. OH MY GOD, THE SKY IS FALLING AND IF YOU EVEN THINK OF SETTING UP A MERP, THE IRS WILL HOUND YOUR CLIENT INTO BANKRUPTCY AND THEY’LL SUE YOU TO WITHIN AN INCH OF YOUR LIFE!!!!! FORGET ABOUT THE EARTH GETTING HIT BY AN ASTEROID – YOU COULD BE LIABLE FOR $100 PER DAY PER EMPLOYEE!!!!! I can’t tell you how many articles came out last summer, when the deadline for the new rules kicked into effect, warning everyone on the planet about that $100 per day disaster. But that warning has morphed into a rumor that MERPs in general are now “illegal,” and group health insurance agents (who get paid more to sell group policies than individual policies) have been only too happy to tell clients that if they adopt a plan, they’re just begging the IRS to fine them out of existence. Here’s what the agents and press don’t tell you: The market reform provisions don’t apply to a single-employee plan. Are you taxed as a sole proprietor, with no employees? Want to set up a MERP, hire your spouse, and reimburse them for the cost of your family’s healthcare costs. Go for it – the ACA doesn’t change a single thing about it. It’s also still perfectly legal to offer a MERP that wraps around a group health insurance policy. Nothing about those wraparound plans has changed. It’s even perfectly legal to offer a premium reimbursement plan to pay for individual health insurance. (Except for subsidized policies from an exchange. No double dipping!) Those “premium reimbursement plans” aren’t “illegal” at all. They’re just subject to a penalty tax. If the IRS ever does come in and tell you your plan doesn’t comply, you have 30 days to correct the flaw before becoming subject to the tax. No harm, no foul. Now, let’s say you thumb your nose at the IRS and continue offering your noncompliant plan. You’re not ready to join a militia and take over federal property, are you? But you’re going to take a stand against Big Brother and tell the government “no.” That $100 per day tax, that multiplies into a terrifying $36,500 per year, per employee? It’s capped, at just 10% of the cost of noncompliant benefits an employer provides. Pay $8,000 per year for your employee’s coverage? It’s capped at just $800. In fact, for larger employers, it’s even further capped at $500,000. No employer will ever get caught owing a $36,500/employee tax. In fact, it may still make perfectly good financial sense for an employer to get rid of their group coverage, buy noncompliant individual policies, pay the damn 10% tax, and still come out ahead! Now, I haven’t seen a single article in the popular financial press that mentions those limits. But I’ve seen plenty of scaremongering! And that scaremongering is what leads to questions. But please, for the love of God, if you hear that using a medical expense reimbursement plan (or any other strategy) is “illegal,” do your homework! Don’t let your clients take tax advice from sensationalist reporters or untrained health insurance agents looking to fatten their overrides and bonuses. Don’t let them be intimidated out of perfectly legal strategies that might save them a ton of money!

WITAXLADY, Tax answer is answered by SaraEA and Catherine as quoted above. I do NOT have anything better ---- however you also asked for "advice with familiar situation", so ------ a few comments for your thoughts and consideration followed by personal experience with several families. When did a committee EVER make a decision that truly honored the "person's" wishes --- it all comes down to what the majority wants rather than the person -- otherwise there would not be a need for a committee (YOUR mother and father want the land kept together -- the proper attorney will advise them and if they (mother and father choose to follow or not; that is there wishes) no need for committee). Somebody is going to "contest" the will regardless of how it might be written (unless it benefits them of course) Once probated or if done through trusts, let them spend their money, time and good will from others, along with lowering whatever they might receive --- it will not change them. Especially if they want to "contest it before it is even placed in probate????? --- let them --- if they chose to not honor your parents --- that is there choice --- they will have to live with the results (both from less inheritance and from family, etc.) --- . Your parents wishes are known to them, if they feel slighted, that is their problem. As far as a lot of money has been spent, that apparently is because --- someone ---- is not getting their way --- it is a shame that their positions are more important than your parents wishes, but ---- the wishes are more important ---- maybe, eventually those persons will realize that the money being "spent" to try to make peace and everybody "happy" is money that will not be there for their inheritance, etc.. Spend what is needed to make/keep your parents wishes. "Is it better to stop doing what should be done because all that has already been spent/given, when the outcome is NOT what was desired --- OR do you spend more to reach the initial goal (your parents wishes)? My own experiences with several families are that many "relations" were stressed, some even broken and that it all came down to those parties looking out for themselves instead of even trying to do what the parents wished. Sad but there is no way everyone can be fully happy here ---- except if they think more of the parents than their own benefit. Some of the folks came back together - eventually --- some did not, but those probably would "NOT HAVE BOTHERED" anyway, sooner or later. Do what you think will honor your parents - regardless of outcome --- and let them choose ONE EXECUTOR who will follow their wishes regardless of the fuss, etc.. That is the executor's duty -- not to worry if they are liked, etc. but to follow the wishes of the will maker according to law. The Tax Attorney just helps keep it all legal --- and remember ---- as an attorney is foolish if they representative themselves; so truly might the "tax professional" be foolish, if they enter into something like this as a policy or decision maker for their close family. The above is my opinion and thoughts ---- some say I am full of good information, some say I am just "full of""" -- all is given with good intentions and hopefully helps you and others think properly. Sorry for your troubles, and hope your parents have an easy transition with their "partners" passing when God calls them. (we feel sorrow and worry because they are not here with us;--; they feel happiness because they are with Jesus & God and have no more pain or worry). God Bless you and your parents.

Since H&R is just giving away a million dollars a day ($1,000 x 1,000 people = 1 million), anyone here going to stop by each day, weekly, etc. to see if they are the lucky one ---- "no purchase necessary" according to ad's? Not as good a payoff as PowerBall but better odds. s/ Take time off from your business (just work till 0300 hr. instead of 0200 hr. to make it up. Brief stroll, get a coffee (tea) and become richer at your competitor's expense????? Have a GREAT SEASON!

Just want to be sure I am doing "it" correctly --- The schedule C is mentioned, etc. but I am basically doing the same with mechanic employee's (itemized of course) including having the de minimis policy. Also, expensing toolboxes and electronics, etc. (sec 179) for a few of my clients. Am I correct or have I missed something?

Agree with Jack. The charts are based on pass practices and "best guess" but is NOT from IRS, so why tell clients something not legitimized by the government? /s Of course the same can be said of many things "legitimized by the government" too! (could NOT resist )

Just a note on staples (not printer cartridge related - just staples related) -- remember that if an ATX user you can use Staplesadvantage.com (after sign up) for auto discounts and free shipping. There is both a free ship program to your site and you can also register a credit card and get the "advantage" price in store (if you are there).

Loaded 15.2 day it was posted. Did an update directly from ATX (as I did with initial install) and no problems as yet. No actual clients completed BUT all "tested" returns including my own working well. Can not speak to state and locals tied into returns as most of mine are PA and the state has been lax in approving the main PA form. Maybe because of no budget and our governor may be hoping to a retroactive increase of the state tax (NO NO NO).