Medlin Software, Dennis

If permits not final means it may not be connected at all, aloft true, not completed to me. 

45 minutes ago, Lion EA said:

Why do our clients think we are SS experts?!

Over the last several decades, people have changed.  Just as we used to go to a butcher for meat a produce stand for produce, etc., we now seem to want one stop shopping.  Like some of my customers, I suspect yours will ask anything, just in case you will answer it for free.  This type of thing is one of the reason I had to drop phone support several years back.

Literally, today, I helped someone discover who was using different software, that they were making a typing error.  The initial contact was a complaint that the "IRS" was coming up with a different figure than Medlin (it was neither the IRS or Medlin).  I get asked for things like if I can make data from X software work with mine, and often, basic computer operating questions.  It is a real art to deflect, and keep things within the scope of what they have paid for.

Balance likely due the reason for non file? Maybe the best advice is to get the returns filed, so they are not a black cloud. Always some option for payments. 

Ca and Il have it too. I suspect all are back ended and “sold” to the states by one company. It looks good to the public, and creates a new board or similar in each state to oversee.

Hard to believe there are not already better returns available open market.

I can see the merit of something for those who have not bothered to setup something on their own, but those are the ones not likely to set this up either. 
 

old reference…

As of July 2022, 11 states have passed legislation authorizing auto-IRA programs. Six of those states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington — have live programs. The other five ― Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland ― have not fully implemented the programs yet.

I always fall back on ignoring “requests” and sharing only what is required. 

Likely the same as anywhere (and really, the same for any client.friend/family member).  Advice on preparation for any disaster/incapacity is likely all you can help with, recovery is something they will have to do.  Maybe share any extensions they are eligible for, so they may worry less, but I suspect their returns are not a pressing worry (unless an employer).

Unless someone pays for things you need to know about in cash, they will have access to records... and if they do pay in cash, that is a discussion for a later time (not only record keeping issues, they are giving away rewards/points from charge cards).

I could go on a long time on this topis.,  We live in a flood and quake area.  We are above the flood line, and our home survived the last big one well, but power and communication can be an issue after the event begins.

Mr. Wilson in me always bristles at any payroll software handling anything for a non employee. I imagine getting laughed out of court or DOL hearings when said non employee proves payroll software was used to pay them. 

22 minutes ago, mcbreck said:

The Supreme Court will need to rule on this. Imagine if 50 states had this type of ruling.

They did, Wayfair (which was a change to, IIRC, "Quill").  This "new item is states adding the interpretation of Wayfair to PL 86-272.  The PL was before email, so there is wide room for interpretation.  It is a federal law, with a non government entity (MTC) giving boilerplate suggestion.  Sound familiar? It is what we have with Wayfair and sales tax, some states are common, the suggested formula and triggers, and others elected something else.  It is an interesting thing our Union allows.  Even within Wayfair and sales tax, states have different/sovereign rules on what is taxable such as in my case, how is canned software treated as a whole, and does delivery (hard media or electronic) alter the status.

Same with employment law, states can nexus on first second worked in state (and what defines in state), some give 30 days, and so on.

So, to me, it seems like the only "case" would be some update to PL 86-272, which has not happened in nearing 40 years.

For me, the avoidance of unwanted nexus has a clear/easy/viable path.  For most others here, it likely means no outside of domicile returns, unless you can get a higher return than in state returns.  Tom might be one to opine, assuming he kept more than a few CA clients, and wants to keep them.

Again, for me, I do have to watch what I do when we travel, as I do not want to trigger nexus just by checking an email (hello again NY as the worst case example).

41 minutes ago, Lion EA said:

I already e-file returns for CA resident clients, so I already have CA-sourced income. Someone who emails me from CA but doesn't hire me, won't add to my CA-sourced income.

Emailing directly, user opens their email software or clicks a link which opens their email software, does not trigger nexus (IMO).  Nor does sending a fax, or phoning.

The triggers are VERY specific, both in the MTC suggested text, and in CA, and in NY's proposal.  MTC suggested is "interacting with a web site or app to communicate".  CA and NY (proposed) mention only via website.

Even without income caused nexus, accepting communication via a non exempted method can trigger nexus, as it can be argued you were trying to have income.  No income does not always mean no reporting, min tax, registration, etc.

For me, no more online instant chat unless a chat service comes up with valid means to exclude based on location (which they back up with $), and no more website fill in and send messages (since it is easy to click and use their own email, although I lose the ability to require certain details).  At least (for me) once NY or any state other than CA goes live with the new policy.

For me only, YMMV.  Since I am in CA, I don't have to do anything yet, but with NY already having something similar in the works, I have to plan.  My "problem" is a customer contacting me via a clickable email link, web email form, or web chat, triggers nexus under these new Wayfair caused rulings.

I asked my web hosting service about using IP to geolocate by state. There are ways to do so, so I could serve a state specific site, or not have clickable contact info.  (As an aside, if my web host service is not paying CA taxes already, answering my message, which was sent via web based email form, triggered CA nexus!)

Given IP info is not 100% accurate as to geolocation, I am going to make best effort as follows.

Remove clickable email links, the type which ask the user's system to open their email program with my address prefilled.  This includes in documentation, which resides on the users computer.

For web based email forms and web based chat, require the person select their state, and offer a check box to verify they are not in the states I elect to avoid nexus.  I can already get their IP address as a backup to the zip code.

Definitely not offer any sort of remote access help to anyone in the special states.  (Rare that I offer anyway.)

---

I think what I am pondering is a reasonable and defensible effort to stop nexus claims, at least until there is some test cases to see what "flies".  I suspect states which go after nexus will operate complaint based, or via some sort of testing that someone in the state can use the site in a way to cause nexus.  By asking for zip code, and an affirmative selection, I shift the onus back on the viewer to be honest.

I suspect once someone gets dinged by CA, the web chat providers and web hosts will come up with something, as those that do not will lose business.  I equate this "issue", in my circumstances, to the EU rules about cookie and privacy pop up we all see, except on sites, like mine, which block access from EU.

---

For others here, if you have a web site, or in any other way get messages other than via someone manually typing in your email address, watch for nexus in CA, and be ready for other states to follow.

It is not going to be pretty... The Wayfair sales tax results have varied rules by state. Many adopted the recommend thresholds, a few have no threshold.  For sales tax, enforcement is an issue as it would likely be complaint driven, followed by investigation.  In other words, I doubt State X is going to try to find out how many items/dollars a small company has sold, to see if they went over their threshold.  The cost would likely outweigh the income, making it not profitable.  The purpose was to go after the big online retailers, and scoop up some of the medium folks.

This implementation based on Wayfair may end up with similar results.  But, for the purposes of this group, with ethics and with easy proof of your location, compliance will not be something to risk.  The new issue with this interpretation by CA, is setting the bar very low.  Having a clickable link to email or chat is a huge stretch, but likely enforceable unless challenged. States could develop or subscribe to some sort of web scraper to EASILY get enforcement leads. I could see an entire new industry, such as re-positioned debt collectors, selling leads for a small take of the result.  We may have to go back to sharing plain text non clickable email address on our web site (and the resulting spam via web scrapers) versus munged clickable links and chat windows.  Or, we will have to send countless emails (which can be sales oriented) so our customers have an easy way to reply.  Gray area right off the bat is a clickable link in the software itself.

Interestingly, and again, not a lawyer, but if the state determines the company has nexus via a clickable email link, then they may be able to claim proper jurisdiction in in the state, making one have to defend outside of their physical location.  It may be the tipping point to get undefended compliance, fear, for instance, of CA winning by default because someone in the East could not come to (or hire representation in) CA to defend.

Just a non lawyer opining, but I suspect it would take another SCOTUS ruling to even challenge what CA has determined (and which will inevitably followed by others).

Ny is looking at this too, likely other states. Trickle down of the Wayfair ruling.

For me, I don’t to remote logins to customer computers for help )trigger). I don’t do automatic updates (trigger). I do have links to my email on my website (trigger), so once any other state adopts similar to CA, I may have to remove the links and make people type. I did not see anything where the software having a link is an issue, but probably since it would be triggered in another state.

Like Wayfair, it appears some states will set thresholds, and some will set theirs to zero. 

8 minutes ago, mcb39 said:

"All you have to do is put the numbers in the computer!"

That is the issue.  Some think a computer and software makes them qualified, prevents errors, etc.  Those are the likely to think that is all a preparer does too.

While I am likely knowledgeable enough to do our corp return, I am wise/old/lazy/busy enough not to.  I know they do have an input person.  What we pay for is their supervisor who reviews the return, makes sure staff is trained, and spends time answering my questions/concerns.  It is a good working relationship.  I just got a thank you message for showing PTET as a separate line item... after having a professional back and forth on a few items I wanted to be clear on.

2 minutes ago, kathyc2 said:

pencil are going the way of dinasours!

While I am not out in the wild, I rarely come across anyone who can handle even one payroll (power outage, computer failure, etc.) with any sort of writing instrument, paper, and cash or checks.

I still suggest people have 15T and their state pub in their top drawer, but I doubt if any do.  Same for paper checks on hand, and/or access to at least a few hundred dollars per employee to buy a day or two delay.

Just an age thing, but I was not allowed a calculator in class until my feeble attempt at conforming in college.  Still cannot find the Dr or Cr buttons on a calculator <smile>, or the "any" key.

As I embark on trying to pass on what I know, I ever so strongly try to remind/inspire the person to learn the process, not so much the tool, as understanding the process is the gold, anyone can bang on a keyboard to use the tool.

Another looks to be on their way.  Livid that I have no means to access their state's records and get their UI rate "for" them, since that is what they thought they were paying me for, to be their payroll service and answer all possible payroll questions for them.  (I license payroll software for self use.)

Interestingly, they are not a new customer.  I wonder how they forgot they setup their own UI rate at the beginning of the last year?  Maybe they are having a bad day, we will see.  Mine started not so good, one of our kids called early to say his vehicle was stolen overnight.  Thankfully, he lives across the street from his school, and we can get him our spare car in a day or two.

1 minute ago, mcbreck said:

Had a new guy last year who I really thought was going to be a problem. 3 calls before we ever met (all implied problems were possible) and when we met he gruffed and complained. Turned out to be a terrific guy and he's referred several others to me in 11 months. Over the summer he dropped by my office just to thank me and see how my vacation went.

I try to let them fire themselves, like the one starting off on the wrong foot this morning.  I have replied twice, with the pertinent information, including a link they can use to log in and get their rate.  Their next reply, if any, will determine their status.

2 minutes ago, Lynn EA USTCP in Louisiana said:

When I changed the password in SSAA BSO last week, I was told it expires in 90 days.

thank you for the clarification.  I get the reasons, but it is fairly unworkable, for something many access only during January.  No point in having a Pwd at all for that short of a time, better to rely on some sort of other method, SMS code (with a less often expiring PWD), token, etc.  Just one person's opinion, and darn glad I do not have to handle their lost/forgotten PWD requests.

Succinct, sensible, and direct information from the IRS!

We did well on ridding a certain performer's LV concert tix, after deciding not to wait the year for the reschedule.  I am fine with paying the tax, and appreciate clear direction.  Will be interesting to see 2023's direction, as we will get one more payment in a few weeks, and likely a 1099-K.

3 hours ago, Terry D EA said:

the only hiccup was changing the password. Just thought you might like to know.

Not sure what their current policy is, but at least for a time, it had to be changed in some frequency that those who log in only to file W2 data would have to first go through the lost password (forgotten since the prior year), and those who remembered, would have to come up with a new one every year.

For me, I have a calendar reminder to log in first Tue of Dec, just to make sure I am ready for EOY.

Catherine. I hope I am getting better (more forceful?) at catching issues up front, such as those who expect the software to teach them accounting/payroll processing, rather than use the software as a tool.  My self explanation is computers have become appliances to many, expected to do it all "for" the user.  Last century, all who used computers/software were already experts, now a growing majority believe the ads stating anyone can Q by using B software.

I find myself working on perfecting a stock reply, that software is a tool to help someone do something they can already do without said software. If there is no existing training/experience to rely on, then hiring out is the best bet - maybe a small local person/firm who is willing to patiently answer questions (not for free) if the person wants to learn the process.  I also mention all business owners should have at least a modest idea of the process, so they can spot trends/issues, but they should defer to the people they pay for advice (and their E&O coverage!).  There are endless options to gain knowledge, free and paid, in person and remote, so lack of desire to gain knowledge is a red flag.

Some of Mrs. Kravitz' habits have leaked in as well... Not so much being a busy body, but watching what goes on, or more specifically, having visible working cameras so the baddies move along.  We get asked, from time to time, if we caught something.  One of our cams records every thing entering our cul-de-sac.  Helped catch someone who as checking for unlocked vehicles and homes.  The person who was caught skipped by our place and vehicles, looking straight at the cameras... but did not realize how wide the field of view is.

Just got four new ones today, to replace some outdated ones.  They not only are clear enough to get a real face image and license plate image night or day, they are supposed to pan with the moving subject.

1 hour ago, Randall said:

I'm still puzzled as to what the 25% applies to.  Seems contradictory.

Just finances/taxation.  One cannot call it sensible in any manner <smile>.  If puzzling, consider refraining from offering the client any advice until it becomes more clear.  With a plan, the plan manager can answer their contribution questions, and you can just do what the client wants (unless it is objectionable to you).  Keeps you from being liable for giving the advice or numbers to go on.

As we have chatted about before, it can be freeing, and many will say necessary, to fire a few clients each year/season.  In my case, I don't really have to prepare, I can just issue a refund, and send a "thank you for past usage, make sure to print needed records" type of message.

Happened again today.  Someone asked a relatively simple question, with the proper answer being no.  The now former customer did not like the answer (the item was something it is not proper to do), so the refund was initiated.

For me, most fire themselves, such as making the "threat" along the lines of do what I want or I will find other software/post negative reviews, etc.  These are becoming sadly routine as attempted blackmail seems to be some sort of way people think they can get what they want.

The other usual is someone asking me (interestingly, the person who wrote the software) for help, then claiming my suggestion is wrong, unable to be done, etc.  Today's example was a customer who believed their "IT" person (or was just being dishonest about having an "IT" person), sent a nasty reply, then sent another rely that the software was not the issue as proved by installing in a different location (it was a firewall issue on their end, not broken software on my part).

As I get ready to try to train my eventual replacement, I have been making notes of things to help them deal with customers.  One of them is to never assume the customer is telling the truth.  This is a huge change from 30 years ago when I started... It simply is not wise to take all information at face value.  I actually often ask for "proof", such as a screen capture, and a fair amount of the time the customer was wrong, mistaken, or just untruthful.

So for here, I wonder if you are ready to fire at all times, meaning ready to give working papers or copies on short notice, and send them to the next person/firm?

I ask, because I know we chatted here, years ago, about even terrible customers having money to "get" (meaning to get/earn for services), and sometimes, they have more to spend than easy customers.  In my case, I have one price, so I cannot charge more for tough customers... Plus, as I get older, and relatively stable financially, I have little need to deal with certain things.  (Maybe I am getting to be more Mr. Wilson than Dennis!)

54 minutes ago, Randall said:

I'm not sure he has a formal plan.

Bingo!  Given a one person entity, the odds are good there is no formal plan.

Just now, cbslee said:

Amusing discussion, since the IRS still hasn't implemented optical scanning and all paper filed 1099s have to be entered by an employee.

If true (I have no idea at all) makes what some old timers told me seem real.  The IRS has some, in decision power, who know they are leaving for private, and realize keeping things complicated benefits them.  I am still a bit surprised the paper 1099's are now multi year, but it may have been done in tie in with the supposed upcoming easy efile portal, despite what forms suppliers and paid portals likely lobbied against.

1 hour ago, TAXMAN said:

Does form 1099 nec and form 1099 miscl copy A have to be filed on red paper? I know the 1096 has to be.

YES.  There are many who say/claim/have proof the IRS accepts self printed copy A, the "specifications" do not permit it, and thus, the IRS can elect to charge a fairly hefty fine per form (not page, but for each item reported).

This is different than the SSA, which embraced self printed Copy A forms starting with TY 2021.

If the PR is correct, and the IRS does come up with an easier/free efile for 1099's, I suspect I (in my software) will not even try to fill in the red dropout ink 1099 forms any longer, even though it appears the IRS has settled on non year specific forms...