Medlin Software, Dennis

If you have any AL W2 earners, who have OT, beware of payroll/W2 issues. AL, for 2024, and Q1/Q2 of 2025, is exempting OT earnings from AL gross wages (essentially AL taxable wages). The W2 should have a box 14 item showing the exempted wages, and box 16 should not include the exempted wages. I expect many employers handled this less than accurately. Such as exempting only the OT premium, by exempting incorrectly (ONLY on pay earned after 40 hours in a week), and so on. My suggestion is if you see an AL W2, view it with caution. You may want to start by asking for their last stub for the year. See if you can figure out if the OT was properly exempted from AL WH. Or maybe create a note reminding the employee you are going off the W2, and if they want you to prove out their W2, that is an extra fee, and they will need all of their stubs for the year, or some sort of paycheck listing for the year. "I" would only bother digging if the annual OT earnings were significant enough to result in a significant Al reduction. --- OT wages in general seem to be a growing issue. What I am referring to is the seemingly lack of proper RROP (Regular Rate of Pay) handling. Depending on your interest, you could ask W2 employees if they received and OT, and if so, if they work at more than one pay rate, received a raise during a pay period, or received any sort of "additional" pay (Bonus, commission, gifts, etc.). Anyone who was paid OT, and had more than one pay rate, or received additional pay, is subject to RROP for OT/PTO calculations. I recently had a new customer complain because of RROP. Roughly, they have an employee who earns 10 per hour, or 15 per hour, depending on the job. Of course, the employer wants the OT only on the 10 per hour job and was upset since he "always" paid OT only on the lower rate. With his given figures, the difference was less than $10, but if the employee catches on, the difference will likely be thousands in penalties and defense. I still have had only one or two customers ever ask about handling RROP, which even for my type of customer, is too low. Even though my customer can setup RROP handling, I suspect many ignore it.

I get accused of being an AI bot. The issue is not my reply, but the number of same human tricks, needing the same response. I do have prewritten replies I can select, honed to be as concise as possible, but they were human developed/written. Last week, it was a person who was having trouble following plainly and accurate steps (three of them). Their replies did not need any more from me, other than to remind them to accurately follow steps in the earlier reply. After a few messages, I added something like "The first reply had the accurate solution, step by step. There are no hidden or additional steps I held back." This resulted in the oft seen "I want a real person you must be replying with AI." response. I sometimes use the old "paper towns" trick - not correcting all spelling errors, or even insert one, to not only see if anyone reads the item, but to now prove it was not AI generated.

I saw and objected to such responses on another private board. The person eventually responded stating they thought they were helping (they would copy the OP, then post AI results, which was easy to reproduce). I was blunt, and said the board was for providing "between the lines" sharing, as all of the participants should be professional enough to use a search engine, so asking in public was almost never for a plain answer any search engine could return. Of course, there are many newer members who ask things, but most of the vets ignore things which can be found via even the most basic search. Search engines are the precursor to AI, since they scrape and snip things to present. The difference is, at least for me, being in a search engine results in earnings, where AI results to not. I allow one or two search engine AI bots "in" at present, since they give me something back (more search engine click throughs). One of the first bots I stopped was one who was selling plagiarism score results. I got nothing from them hammering my sites, yet they were making money. I also blocked a competitor's IP ranges, as they were hammering my site as well. There is a great long time group for web site creators to discuss and share these types of things (I don't work at it that hard). The last year or two, more and more random IP's are scraping me looking for doors in. Most look for common word press pages. Easy to block though. This is another reason I do not use tools like word press. Better to be a little fish in a big pond, rather than invite hacking. We use some shared type web coding, but we do not depend on outside tools other than certain well known and trusted css files. At some point, I will likely have to create a door in, meaning washing all accesses through a filter type of deal. Many use Cloudflare for this, but I prefer something less well known.

"Maybe I'm paranoid." No, prepared. The cost of keeping prepared is much cheaper than even one rebuild from lack of backups.

"If it's not broke, don't fix it" I used to believe that to in many aspects. But computers is not one of them. There should always be a current one in use, and a current or recent at the ready (unless you are prepared to go out and get off the shelf in an emergency). We use these things for income, so expensing them should not be a problem. I get this so often, and even though I get "muddy", I still try to share the possibility of being better prepared. What I mean is even today, someone was ripping at me because they want to use our "pro" software with W7, which we do not allow. They claimed they cannot afford a current computer, not even a $300 refurb (and ignored upgrading to W8 then W10, which was free for at least some of the time). If that is true, then they are not really a good choice to have as someone's payroll or accounting provider, since they could disappear at any moment, even a traffic ticket could break them. I was just pondering the axiom, as this is the first year our jeep did not have the doors and top off, and we barely used it. It is still fun, but we are drifting to the point where not having full airbags, or large mass, seems derelict in terms of seeing our granddaughter grow up. Ties in with finally getting a four wheeled vehicle in my 30's after a couple of decades and a million miles + on two wheels, and for those who remember the 60's or earlier, wearing a lap and shoulder belt becoming common if not the law.

Until an AI provider can certify the data they are using as their base source was not copyrighted, or they have a release for all of their data, using AI is stealing from copyright holders, mainly via web site scraping. AI is not a case of fair use or excerpts; it is complete and total theft of product (sans releases or public domain data). It is comparable to going to a local library, scanning all books, then reformatting what one has scanned (stolen) and selling it.

Even if you do not want to upgrade the OS, this issue is the (should not be hidden or ignored) reason to do it every few years, on purpose. Such a change is the only time most will ever prove their backup/restore plans work. I wake up most days to at least one customer who has no backup or has never tested their backup. By the time someone contacts me, it is more than 90% a case of having no usable backup. Once you go through a device change, or have lived through data loss, one tends to perfect and test their recovery process. At least once a week, if not daily, I ponder if I can recover from waking up with no machines or data at my fingertips. I have been saying and proving yes for at least a couple of decades. Thus, a computer change is a snap. A little more than a certain brand of phone change, but less than an hour to get to a base start over position, and no more than a few (I forgot to restore that) steps from full recovery.

As a software dev, it is and was easy to remain compatible with XP forward. IN fact, unless someone needs something limited to a newer OS, or codes in a manner which makes it OD dependent, the same program will work on each OS. The issue for software devs is safety and testing. Meaning I do not have W10 or older anymore, as they are known to be less safe for me to use, so I cannot and will not test on an older OS. IN the case of this group, most/all are subject to the security requirements (the one you had to create a document/policy for), and there is zero chance an insurer or regulatory agency will consider an expired OS to be secure. I get this sort of issue often, someone saying their X year old box works fine, why update. (What used to be) Common sense says any important data should be used with current software and current hardware. Before SSD's, it was said that 3 years was as long as one could safely assume no drive failure (after about the first 24 hours of use). I have not looked into whether or not this has changed since SSD's went mainstream. In any case, a 5 year cycle of hardware replacement is not unusual, expensive, and makes sense (since your backup hardware will then get to 10 years old). Anyone without backup hardware should not have date responsibility. Anyone not replacing hardware at least every 5 years, likely the same. For those not networking, one can get a replacement generic box for less than 1k, and if in business, 1k every 5 years is not something to complain about. Note, in another year or two, my software will lock out those using certain old versions of Windows, and my pro edition already expects a current OS - since the target user should be keeping their OS current. Here., most are tax preparers, charged with keeping the very personal details of their customers absolutely secure. Given a second of thought, I just cannot see any way to consider an old OS as meeting this requirement. Keep it EASY, and stop planning your device changes to the end of an OS life, and make the changes 6 months or so after a new OS comes out. But, the above is just my experience over 40+ years, and cost you nothing, so it may be worth exactly that to you.

TTT, That is what I "get" for not wearing my glasses and/or going from closer to Medicare than selective service registration age memory! Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Even with W10 EOL not here yet, is should be considered "dead" (and an actual machine which does nor or cannot run W11 well should be dead too) a short time after W11 was released, especially for those who are bound by data security requirements.

Just one opinion, mine. Just offering food for thought. W10 came out in 2015. W11 in 2021. Whatever one thinks of the different versions, or Microsoft itself, it is the boat we are all sailing on. If a device being used for important things cannot run W11, or has not been updated to W11, I would not want my personal data on it. Not having the latest in built in security in the latest OS is one factor. Another is knowing the person using the device is not keeping current is another factor. I am likely an outlier because I ask, but it is how I feel. I am not fond of changing OS on an existing machine. Instead, I get a new device with the new OS installed (and known to work with the new OS). I did have once where I installed W11 on an existing device, and it was not an issue as the device was only a few years old. Currently, I have a newer ZenBook dual monitor portable, which is my daily. I also have a surface pro with ARM which I really like for the power and heat savings. It will likely become my daily sometime soon. Even if a network is used, I am a big fan of portables for their enhanced power safety, overall safety (can be put in a safe), and portability. I quit PC gaming decades ago, the only reason these days someone might need a box over a portable, as gaming graphics are best, for a little longer, on a box. One can also likely argue, quite well, using W10 for tax returns violates the rules about keeping data secure, since W10 was retired last month, unless maybe one is paying for extended support (which makes no sense to me to do, compared to using something current).

"Interesting Advice It's easy to say things like this when you have no responsibility" If you are making light or questioning my post, I have responsibility and have actually gone through the process. The part you did not quote is where I shared my own personal experience. I chose the exact method I am writing about, for the reasons I wrote about. We have a shareholder who does not materially participate. Maybe they do not want their personal information used (address for instance) and prefer to use a company address or other address. This also keeps me from being liable for managing and updating their data. There are some real buts out there, such as one being housed by the federal government who threatened me and mine with death should I respond to a subpoena (convicted for tax fraud). If a BO does not provide the needed data timely, then they can be the one who deals with penalties. BO's have plenty of times where they act responsible, expecting then to register for this on their own should be zero issue. "In my own case, I could have done it since I know all the data, but it is not my place to determine what information each person wants to make public. The side, and actually important bene is it is up to them to manage their own data should it ever change. I assume the data will eventually leak to the dark web, if not to a public site (just as it would be foolish to consider one's SSN private). I do not want to worry about more than my own personal data."

"That's going to be REAL popular. Asking the whole board for all their personal details. " Absolutely not required, and in most cases, should not be done. Ask them to register (and manage) their own data, then provide the ID. Keeps the person from handling the entity aspect from having to take on managing each individual and allows the individual to enter data as they see fit. In my own case, I could have done it since I know all the data, but it is not my place to determine what information each person wants to make public. The side, and actually important bene is it is up to them to manage their own data should it ever change. I assume the data will eventually leak to the dark web, if not to a public site (just as it would be foolish to consider one's SSN private). I do not want to worry about more than my own personal data.

I would not, unless they prepay cash/check my PITA fee. Someone taught me our job is to get money, and even the most PITA person we get money from has a price which makes us happy to take said money. A good example is taking back someone who posted nastygrams on review sites. Something powerful about being able to show that person returned.

At this point, the only sane advice is to suggest they work with a qualified probate form, local to the locality where any property in the decedent's name is located. There is absolutely zero reason not to use proper representation when the estate may leave a positive balance.

Indeed, some who are in business might be ignorant, but it is no excuse for compliance via direct knowledge, or by paying for knowledge. Meaning ignorance is costly, not bliss.

There should be a difference in insurance, to get a rider or separate/different policy for pax for hire coverage. I am not sure if I would get into dissecting how IRS comes up with amount per mile, I would just accept it. There is money to be made. When we travel, we use the higher end black type service. We want commercial licensed and insured drivers. I chat with most. Most use a separate card they are paying monthly for. Most will share their monthly nut for car costs (rent/lease and insurance). Most are making a decent living according to them. The most interesting recent was someone who leases a tesla. His big win is on the fuel cost savings, which mirror ours, at 20% or less than gasoline. Plus, the maintenance is much less than his former gas vehicle. He has a close to home free charger he uses off hours and has many he will use during any down time. Even when he pays SC prices, a SC is 50% or less than gas for him (which also mirrors my experience). One of our kids uses uber to get to and from the airport. He prefers to use the EV/green service as the vehicles are a bit better than the rando person using their 5+ year old personal vehicle. More often than not, they are full time drivers.

Another important factor is the amount of the "loan". If it is more than say 35% of the employee's average paycheck, if the employee walks before the 3-year period, the employer may not be able to recapture via payroll and would be wanting to make it wages - at least for "punishment" purposes. (A daily issue on payroll chat groups, how to recoup advances, sign on, moving, etc.) If the OP is from the perspective of a preparer handling a question from a client (the employee), I would not (as preparer) step in the steaming pile. Let the employer handle it, correctly or incorrectly, and go from there. The employee reporting it as wages, when the employer has not, could result in the end of the employment. If the employee wants to work for someone who may be shady, so be it. The main issue is it is taxable period. Trying to make it not is a problem, as it trying to tax shift (if the forgiveness is a wink and nod deal instead of documented).

Tom is right on point. If the interest does not meet "reasonable" tests, it is taxable as wages/income when given (as advances are). There is zero chance this is not "but for employment" and taxable as wages at some point. If it is done correctly, the tax hit can be deferred until forgiven (the only possible benefit I can see). The IRS does not ultimately care about services performed; they use the "but for employment" test. An example is giving money to an employee for some sort of family expense. "But for employment" there would have been no relationship, and it would be unlikely the employer would have paid the family expense. BUT, the OP states both parties know it will be forgiven, some will find it tough to not handle as taxable wages on date of the not really a loan was funded.

Complicated. For accounting/tax, at date of loan becoming junk (uncollectable) may be proper. Your post stating it was an agreed time frame means the amount should likely cause recalculation of wages for RROP (Regular Rate of Pay) purposes to make sure OT and PTO were paid using the correct (RROP) rate, and any difference made up (as well as adding the forgiven amount as current wages). Same as if it were a retention/hire bonus paid 3 years later.

If I receive an email in all caps, it gets skipped until all the (what I see as not shouting) messages get answered. I doubt I am alone in that opinion/method. I have only one customer who uses all caps, and I know who it is and do not save their messages for later as I acknowledge they may have a reason (or broken keyboard). I am also of the opinion some programmers in government somehow can afford to be lazy and do not bother with trim/remove/ucase and other similar commands. The no punctuation, I am used to. I have a relative who is less tech inclined, but uses speech to text, and has not grasped saying things like period and comma, so I have become adept at inferring punctuation.

Many entities "reading" data (such as tax information submissions) will require or change the data to all caps. Could be some sort of "old" preference no one bothers to update, or by an old timer's code which can compress better by reducing the number of characters. Some entities do little or no interpretation of submitted data, as their programmers seem incapable of things like stripping out dashes from human entered FEIN's. MANY tax agency programmers cannot interpret a dot as a decimal in a dollar field. For email and other human read communication, all caps is harder to read for most, and most consider it SHOUTING at the reader. I have a few customers who write in all caps, they also have an automatic signature in their messages stating they use all caps for a reason. In my real worked use, if I get a message in all caps, I reply in the same manner, assuming it is the customer's preference/need. Online forms and software which knows the output needs to be in all caps, will often take what you enter and upcase it, as well as limit not allowed characters completely (with a beep usually).

The one check a year I was making (literally printing on blank stock), I no longer have to. I talked to the person (a service person, inspecting our backflow device annually) and gave them some tips. They now use a postcard mailing service I shared with them (rather than doing it themselves, and the service is cheaper than what they were spending), and they now have CC payments via Costco/Elavon, which has no monthly fee, and competitive rates. Did not even raise process, as they likely spend less overall on handling payments (well, his spouse does, and she is happier!) We talked about him setting up a prepay system too, to avoid having do leave a bill (handwritten on one of those old-time books) and to avoid dealing with collection issues.

"Your sister" I do not get into or offer advice on family member's personal finances. I might recommend a qualified professional if it is a family member I am close to. I was asked for advice by three extended family members in the last two weeks. I likely could REALLY help one, but then again, I would then know too much detail, which would likely hurt the relationship. I also do not loan to family, any money I part with to a family member may be a "loan", but I never expect to get it back, and I absolutely do not want to be involved with their finances lest I get snippy because of what they spend my "loan" on.

The price a merchant pays is negotiable. But the big players all have relatively common rates. Anything not based on interchange + fees means the person using the service is new/low credit, risky business (many chargebacks), or is naive. The other case is pure lazy. Meaning use something really easy for the merchant, bump their prices, and let the consumer pay (paypal, square, etc.) The customer pays the fee. Even rewards (since the merchant pays more to cover the reward). The card issuers are in business to make a profit and are good at it. There is value in not dealing with cash and checks. There is value to the customer to be paying for the "protection" of the card agreement, and when cash or check is not an option, getting a rebate via reward. There is risk to the merchant as contesting a chargeback can cost more than the profit on the transaction. There is value not using checks, since anyone can print a check with your information on it, we can all be Frank Abagnale Jr. if we so desire. Cards often offer additional "insurance" and "benefits" for the user. -- A good example is coming up for me. Booking a trip 18 months out. While I have CFAR coverage, using a charge card provides extra protection and travel insurance, which I then do not have to pay for separately. The company offer a 3.3% discount for cash, but it would cost me more to pay for the travel benefits I get through the card. COVID also showed another benefit. Those who were able to use their CC receipts to prove income and get benefits, versus those who were taking cash and maybe not always reporting their income. Some may prefer to pay by card to make sure the merchant is not skimming cash or claiming no receipt of payment.

Likely the form is acknowledging electronic handling of the check, with the physical check not being saved. I have to wonder if Check-21 makes it presumptive a check can be electronically processed, and such a form not needed. When I use mobile deposit (which is similar to using a physical scan/send machine), the only warning from my bank is to keep the check until the amount is funded. With Check-21, the funding can happen almost instantly, depending on your bank and your agreement with your bank. The business owner is likely/hopefully paying for a competent attorney (not a friend or relative) and has decided it is in their best interest to use the form. What gets me is when someone submits CC information which fails, and gets snippy when, if they do it again, I remind them what they are doing is no different than presenting a bad check, and I am within reason to ask them to pay more, to cover some of the costs of the failed attempts. It is ENTIRELY within the CC user's power to make sure the transaction will go through, even if it requires notifying their card issuer in advance. Every failure costs the merchant their time and processing fees!