BLACK BART

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8867.pdf Many posters here say they do few or no EIC returns and the old 8867 was annoying but not a major PIA; however, I think several of us still do CTC/AOTC returns. You're exactly right - that form was duck soup compared to this new combo-monstrosity which could be substituted for an NYPD Blue interrogation. Quite interesting is the question "Have you determined that the taxpayer has not released the (8332) claim to another person?" Well, I can ask, but if the answer is "yes" with an unconvincing facial expression, would I be required to track down the other party? Another attention-getter was page two's blunt-trauma ending statement: If you have not complied with all...you may have pay a $510 penalty for each credit...". You're a better man (or woman) than I am. I ask for a report card, an insurance card, and a medical bill with their name and address on it. But if I go with the new marching orders, then IRS really can accurately describe me as their "partner".

Don't know if live webinars count as "group study" in Illinois or not, but here's a site with a phone number that maybe could tell you. http://www.cpenow.com/surgent-cpe-webinars-and-live-seminars/surgent-mccoy-state-cpe-courses/illinois-cpe-course-list

Not as surprised as I was and it depends on what you call "several" years - these same people previously received a joint penalty notice (one bill-both names) on Nov. 11, 2013. Also, the original bill they just received (October 31, 2016) for non-payment of the 1040 tax was a joint notice (one bill-both names). Yeah, that's what I said in my above post - I was commenting on the sad state of affairs (no pun intended) nowadays; to wit: IRS deems it necessary to advise we can't trust our spouses.

Well, you were right after all about those cancelled check copies I sent to IRS. Instead of hurrying things up, zeroing out the accounts, and calming the clients down, today one of them brought in another IRS letter which states: "We received one of the following items: Correspondence, Telephone Inquiry, Payment, Response to our notice, (etc., etc.). We're working on your account. In order to provide a complete response, we need an additional 45 days to let you know what action we are taking on your account...". This, of course, means nothing except the wheels are grinding at a maddening snail's pace, but it sounds ominous to the client ("What are they gonna do to me?") This...to record a payment. I shudder to think if it had been a real tax problem... Now all I have to do is pacify three more people when they get their letters....

Thanks folks. I had not seen this before. It's a relief to know that it's only the client (and me) becoming hysterical rather than IRS. Also we did pay just the husband's and disregarded hers. This is kind of like the separate 2848 POA forms each must sign whereas previously both spouses could sign the same one. The thinking behind all this (either cynical or realistic - not sure which) must be that, just because you trusted somebody enough to marry them, doesn't mean you can trust them with money .

Client brought in two IRS letters yesterday. This is the same couple as in my post of 11-16-16 ("Unpaid Taxes for 2015") who e-filed and mailed a check (10-15-16) for the balance due which IRS promptly cashed, then billed them two weeks later for the same money. I sent front/back of the check plus explanation to IRS; nothing heard back, so guess (hope) that part is done with. But, they always owe about $300 penalty/interest and prefer to wait until IRS sends a bill. It (they) arrived yesterday -- two CP501 letters, same dollar amount on each, for this married filing joint return - one for HIM and one for HER. Further, although each bill has only one taxpayer's name on it, the husband's social security number is on both and the wife's is nowhere. I've never seen this happen before and wonder if it's the same nut/section that handled the first deal or is the system going haywire? I replied/explained, but it was somewhat awkward 'cause there's no nice way to say "You're crazy."

One idea that's frequently floated as a simple solution is a national sales tax, but I don't worry about that one at all. As we know, millions of people pay no tax at all and simply file to get EIC refunds and all their withholding back. The only tax they pay now is about 8% state sales tax every time they buy something. If the feds pass a national sales tax of, say 15-25%, the states aren't simply going to go away - they'll still want their money too. Anyway, after a few months of every soul in the country paying a total 23-33% surcharge on each item they buy every day, year-round, there would be a deafening roar heard all the way from Podunk Junction to Washington, D.C. for repeal of this "simple" tax.

On the other hand, thinking about it, this second paragraph about online agreement revision could possibly be limited to only the year originally applied for. Good grief, IRS' vague instructions make it almost impossible to advise clients (especially the important ones) for sure what they can and can't do. "You can also use the links below to revise an existing Online Payment Agreement (unless you have a Direct Debit Installment Agreement) or to modify your e-authentication security profile". Maybe somebody else has an idea?

I learn something new every day -- jJust found this at IRS site. Apply for an Online Payment Agreement for Individuals and Businesses Español | 中文 | 한국어 | TiếngViệt | Pусский This application allows a qualified taxpayer or authorized representative (Power of Attorney) the opportunity to avoid long telephone wait times or the need to visit or write to an IRS office to apply for an installment agreement. Once you complete the online process, you will receive immediate notification of whether your agreement has been approved. You can also use the links below to revise an existing Online Payment Agreement (unless you have a Direct Debit Installment Agreement) or to modify your e-authentication security profile. ____________________________________________ Apparently they (or you) CAN do it (see second paragraph - I couldn't get the link to post). I myself have never had a client set up a either a first year or add a second year either successfully or unsuccessfully. Most won't even try -- as you said, they want YOU to do it. I haven't had a situation like yours; mostly I just fill out the 9465 with the EF return or mail in a paper one if it's old stuff, but I've never actually done one either way for a second year. If I didn't want to fool with this junk (and I wouldn't), but wanted to keep his business I think I'd tell him I can't do it because I'm not authorized to without a power of attorney on file and that takes a long now because IRS is very much backed up (true). I was going to say just give him a paper 9465 to mail, but looking at the form it says "Do not file this form if you are currently making payments on an installment agreement...instead call 1-800-82-1040". The secretary may have never actually talked to them, but just stayed on hold longer than she wanted to and now wants you to. Sorry, not much helpful advice, other than just saying "No, I don't have time."

Okay - Thanks All. Me too - checked with another independent yesterday - same story. Yeah, I know that and you know that; problem is - the customers don't. Many things have changed about this business in the last few years, but one thing remains constant - most ordinary people are still scared to death about any notice from IRS. And they want something done about it now; not 60 days later. . Five years ago I talked to an EA who left private practice to work for IRS; said he was astounded at the lack of tax knowledge there. Co-workers, recognizing his expertise, began asking him how to handle problems instead of consulting the clueless supervisor. A small turf war ensued and his superior soon advised "This job's not for you; you need to do something else." He resigned after four months of unpleasant treatment. In the old days, if we sent the right stuff and waited long enough, problems would eventually work their way through the system. Now, I'm not so sure you can outwait them. So I've been thinking about doing it MDEA's way. Only thing, if it still gets all balled up; how can I sent them the front and back of an EF debit?

Would like to know if anyone here has received a notice of non-payment of taxes due after sending in a balance due check at the same time they filed extended tax returns near Oct.15th. Four of my clients (and me) got such a letter last week and my franchise competitor says his guys have received many. The notices gave credit for payments made previously during the year, but not for the remaining balance due check sent in close to 10-15-16. The clients (and I) called the banks and all checks cleared on, before, or near the deadline. I sent front and back check copies to IRS but no replies yet.

It's only a problem for some people. I just read that back in March, J. Russell George, head of the IRS watchdog TIGTA (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration), issued a report complaining (among other things) that many IRS keyboarders were using the word "password" as a password. He suggested a change to something stronger (hmmm: maybe an upper case "P"?). No word yet on how it's playing out.

Hey! Take that back! (Resident of Boonsborough here). I don't think there is a cure for 1/3-charging card table operators - they're everywhere (even here; one takes all comers-35 bucks). Jack's got a good point about (non) affordable electricians/plumbers' "take it or leave it" policy; but unfortunately there isn't a TurboTax alternative for wiring or commodes. I have to charge what I/they can/will stand for without running them off. AR income and my fee (probably AL Gene's too) will likely be substantially less that his OH price, but on the other hand I imagine Lion's CT practice serving the upper-end carriage trade out of NY would likely shade us all. However, allowing for locale, the question remains; are we charging enough? There are so many varied sorts of returns and a patchwork-quilt of customer types that it's hard to generalize unless you're willing to draw a line in the sand, say it's X$, and that's that-no matter what. Every three years I sort of do that (with exceptions, if I know what's good for me) and raise prices $20-$30 across the board. But each time I invariably lose almost 25-40 customers (some simply won't go along - surprised at pickup, they don't come back). Downside-customer base shrinks; upside-less work and price offsets the loss. Other preparers tell me large all-at-once hits aren't smart; that it's better going up 5% a year, but that's nickel and diming to me and I don't like it. I occasionally lure and lowball newbies, gradually bringing them up to snuff - most don't like to change once they're with you. Between raises I baby the clients around quite a bit with servile service to justify my mercantile streak (probably should've taken up social work instead of this biz). P.S. to FD/Gene: I also have a "widows and orphans" rate. _______________________________________ He is a self-made man, and worships his creator. - John Bright: Disraeli

I would have mailed the check too, but as far as filing before 11-30 I wouldn't count on anything getting processed. I sent them a response to a CP notice last week by certified mail with return receipt and have been checking on it through USPS tracking, It became "AVAILABLE FOR PICKUP" at the Cincinnati post office a week ago (on Nov. 4th) and as of this minute it's still laying there. I've never had one wait that long, so I assume they're pretty far behind.

All good arguments and probably everyone here agrees these things should be done. But most clients? I'm not optimistic.

Ain't it the truth. I'm really going to miss that 2-28 fix-foul-ups time. Sometimes I just give employee copies to the client before 1-31 and keep the red ones myself for error corrections and 2-28 mailing (lots of folks disregard the possibly heavy fines). It's usually all you can do to even get clients' info by 1-31. This may help on ID theft, but I'm pretty sure IRS will appreciate the cash windfall from late filing. I can hear the penalized clients now: "Why didn't you.....?")

Note: I am extra sensitive to bad information. I hear from employers and others who believe what they have heard, and complain our software does not comply. I then have to be the nit picker who points out the actual rules, which often gets a reply of "so what, X says"... An example is a state where a tax agency has made a request for certain information on a W-2 in box 20, using the word "please", not "required". First problem is the item is not required to be in any particular box, the actual law is the item can appear in "any available" box (yes, that's right, could be in box 1 and still comply). I consider some will believe it is required, and sometimes go along (assuming it is not prohibited) to prevent me from being having to educate all who question the issue. In this case, that is not even an option because what they would "please" like in box 20 will not fit, unless in a 2 or 4 point font, making the request pointless (to make it easier for the employee and preparer to not miss something) I'll take that as a "No." Thanx. P.S. Sorry, but I couldn't resist. And, as a fellow nit-picker surrounded by ingrates, you have my sympathy.

On the subject of W-2/1099s, it seems like I read/heard something/somewhere about IRS wanting us to blank out all but the last four digits of the SSN on customer copies (but not the IRS copy). I don't remember if it was just a suggestion or a mandate for the future, but I just received my 2016 W-2 software and it doesn't have the option. I can't find anything on the IRS website. Does anyone know if that's in the works or what the status is?

Thanks Elrod. I think I knew about the 1-31 thing, but it certainly doesn't hurt to be reminded since it's new stuff. Problem now, of course, will be getting clients to cough up the info in time for us to actually do something about it. As for the 2-15 refund holdup, my (now) mostly older set either don't care about or get refunds, but I sure feel sorry for our Block/Jackson colleagues who have to deal with the quickie-refund bunch.

Okay. I understand. Thank you.

I didn't see that I mentioned any partisan politics in that post. It was about humor (but I suppose that's subjective). Can you tell me what was objectionable about it?

I am aware of only ONE suggestion that was ever acted upon (although governmental rather than private). And it illustrates the importance of WHO makes it. I used to attend annual CPE statewide seminars sponsored by the University of Arkansas. Many moons ago our seminar fee (books, breaks, blather) was nicely 40 bucks ($240 now, I think). Then one year a new lecturer showed up and, first thing, said "This seminar fee is ridiculously low; I'll speak to the board about it." Lo and behold, next year the fee was $100. And, we were moved from Holiday Inn to the break room of a local factory. Who says government can't operate efficiently?

Some time ago I completed and mailed my exam sheet for 24 hours of EA/CPE (yes, I know you can do it online, but I prefer books) and filled in the vendor's "feedback" survey on the back. Since they fulfill their part of the bargain - providing practical knowledge and not-too-tough questions at a reasonable price (and, because I like writing stuff) - I feel I should return the favor. So, I dutifully answer "yes" (mostly it's true) to the "satisfaction" questions and make a suggestion (one is requested). Now, I've been doing this for years and, of course, nothing ever comes of those suggestions. But I'm not surprised or bothered since I don't expect any changes and the courses fulfill my needs just as they are. Tax software problems are another matter. When's that's affected, you can be in serious trouble (ask one of the Jacks' here-don't remember which-about ATX). I've been with ATX for a good while (through the meltdown several years ago). I haven't had any problems to speak of lately (simple set-up; stand-alone computer), but at one time there was no point in bringing up a federal form problem -- you'd have a better shot at the lottery than getting through to a tech with deeper advice than "Have you downloaded the latest version" (before the automatic downloads we have now). The Arkansas state program always had issues unresolved except for workarounds (bigger customer-base states get most of the attention). For several years I sent detailed explanations about problems, but nothing was done and laying it out was so much trouble I eventually stopped. One persistent problem "cured itself" a couple of years ago (some techie maybe had nothing better to do one day). So I guess my question is -- is there any point whatsoever in saying "yes" when a tech support rep asks "Would you mind completing a two-minute feedback survey"? Or is it all just public relations crap/propaganda to create a "good guy" façade? _________________________________________ To every dog his master is Napoleon; hence, the popularity of dogs. -- ANONYMOUS

I was trying to edit the post but ran out of time. I found out how to get the link posted. Now my complaint: Shaky client whose business may sink is going over the $2,500 "must deposit" limit next quarter. Large payroll taxes will be piling up and I don't want to be the reporting agent (AKA "responsible person") for him. Don't know if he's smart enough for me to show him how to make and pay the EFTSOB (whatever) payments, but $100 per month is walking out the door if he can't and I don't. I'm certain I don't want to be between him and IRS on this. Long ago I WAS for a different client and the agent was looking to me and the secretary for the money (we were on the checking account signature card and that's all it took for us to be on the hook). Luckily, the owner came through, but they made him bring $1,000 in cash to the local IRS office every three days until paid in full. So, it was a close call and just luck that we got out of it. What's your policy on this?

http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2015/oct/cpas-may-be-responsible-for-client-payroll-tax-penalties.html Just tryin' to get a link to post.