Medlin Software, Dennis

"But it has always worked before" "But X did theirs that way" "Really? To download and install, I need to click the 'Download & Install' button? Your instructions should be more clear!" -- Although I do somewhat understand. As I get older, I notice the things I "always" have done before, such as leave my keys in a certain spot, do not always happen. Can't explain it to myself as it must have been one of the kids, since they have moved out, moved in, moved out, moved in, moved out (current status). For those that "suffered" through this far in my message, today started off with an upset employer/customer. They have "employees" who are having trouble with a certain self prep tax program, as it is not accepting their one digit W2 control number. The employer is telling me the employees say the tax program requires a two digit control number... I used to be amused at being asked to provide free support for the software of others, but sometimes it is too much! (Sent the employer a snip from the IRS W2 instructions, pointing out the W2 is correct. Any issue with the tax prep software is something the employee needs to take up with that software vendor.)

Other than the printer and display, file manipulation is the slowest part of computing... Many prefer to pretend their software is faster appearing by handling some file manipulation when the software is not opening or closing.

Major faux pas. This means the program itself is not handling the error, leaving it up to Windows, and 99.9999% of the time, Windows has to close the program. The usual suspect is an array bounds issue (if there are ten items, trying to access something other than 1 through 10), a memory corruption (but these days, most programs do not need to directly rear and write to specific memory locations), or an overflow (for example, a numerical value of a byte, and trying to set it beyond the range of a byte (say to 257). But, for a zip code, assuming it is a zip code field causing the issue, zip codes are usually stored as strings (text) not numbers, since even in the US, we have the dash in the plus 4. Thus, if it is a string (text) field actually causing the issue, there is more likely a memory corruption, which may be causing as yet unseen data issues elsewhere. So be careful... For me, this would be a 100% stop and focus only on this issue, should I ever get this reported. (Good therapy for me to write this out, as it reminds me of what I have to be wary of as well.) What is very puzzling is the program actually staying open after the Windows message. The windows message is usually only shown when the program does not handle an error (just before the program is terminated by Windows, unless there is some sort of "we really don't have a clue as to what the error is, but we will let you keep going anyway" error handling, which does not show a custom message and shows the windows message instead. Normal practice is to never rely on the Windows message/termination, sine it gives the programmer no clue as to what has happened.

Given my customer base, and how the support questions come in, a fair number of employers doing their own payroll will wait until next week to prepare W2 forms... Some will be later, despite being reminded multiple times to get them out on time.

Accuwage is now an online tool only. It used to be a downloadable program (which at least for a few years, required Java to be installed as well).

A camera can be in a ceiling/wall/wall corner. Covers the whole room. A sign on the door announcing the surveillance for safety (or whatever is required in your state). At the least, it will likely create a more civilized environment. At best, it can protect you and yours from (or help you deal with) something untoward. If this were not a public forum, I could share more, which would explain why I use all available protections and deterrents, even in settings which most people would not worry.

As one who has cameras around and recording 24/7, how about video/audio in your office? No more "they said, I said" issues. I have come to accept I am nearly always being recorded, if not by me, by the street cameras, the light pole cameras, and all the business, home, and dash cameras. The new "good fences make good neighbors" is "good video and audio makes good neighbors". Caveat: In some states, such as mine, attempting to using audio as evidence is a crime. There are exceptions, one of which covers my audio recordings.

That is the real skill in what you do, and in part, what I do. Giving advice which does not make you worry, handling customer mistakes without risking your reputation, and all the while keeping the income flowing. Personally, I have a tough time dealing with people who do something wrong, and they usually know is wrong, but then again, I am not signing any returns, so I try to point out the mistake, then 'let it go". For instance, the owner/employee who waits until January, to see how they can pay less tax, and back dates themselves one paycheck for December. Their "I always do it this way" argument is never one I can win, so I point out what they are doing is not correct, to seek professional advice, and "let it go". Those types of folks will not change unless caught, and since I am not the "catcher", that is all I can do, since it is not my worry. I do save those emails, just in case they try to put me in the collection chain.

Any V code on a W2 form can be left off a tax return. "Taxpayers and tax professionals are urged to enter the verification code when prompted by software, as it can speed the processing of the return and the issuance of the refund. However, omitted and incorrect verification codes will not delay the processing of a tax return." (Emphasis added) https://www.irs.gov/individuals/w-2-verification-code

The RT record is the "total" type record. The RW record is the "employee" record. The message is saying the actual number of RW records, since the last RE (employer) record, is not the same as the number reported in the RT record. The date contains 7 RW (employee) records. IN the RT record (the total record) there is some other employee count given.

To offer certain efile options with the IRS, one must provide personal information, even if the software creating and sending the file has zero responsibility for the information being reported. They want to be able to dun the messenger.

Just guessing the code is created using some of the data on the form (similar to how one can verify a CC number is not invalid). This way, the SSA/IRS can decode it. The code will be useless once the algorithm leaks, which it eventually will. Unless there is some sort of method where the software vendor has to provide the code to the IRS, and the code can be created in many ways. It will be interesting to see if this "group: ever makes the code process available to all, or whether this is yet another attempt to block out those not "in the know", so they can pretend their software is "better" because it generates the code. Or, "he he", it needs to be used by the software companies who put employee data online, and have been hacked

IIRC, it was something which a group, including the IRS/SSA and certain stakeholders (big software vendors) came up with. It is not required for all, but those who get on on their form, can use it on their returns. I suspect it will not be required of all, since they likely do not want to let us "common" folk in on the algorithm. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/w-2-verification-code "The IRS has partnered with certain payroll service providers"

Unless someone is aware of the ramifications, those types of payments are always under withheld. Few want to use the supplemental rate (since the employee would be upset), and few want to do the math for aggregate. Most employers will even fudge those checks, removing other deductions, to make the bonus look bigger - knowing no employee will ever complain about getting too much money. Had two of the exact same question in the last half hour!

I can see item 1. Since the owner controls the W2 submission, and may need those figures as their limit, this actually makes, dare I say it, sense.

I received a lock in letter personally, several years back. At that time, my liability washed to zero, even with a reasonable income (one earner family, loads of mortgage, tax, and other deductions, fair amount of properly accounted for non taxable "income"). The lock was sent the first year of the lock letters, and was likely automatic for anyone who was above a certain earning level, with no withholding balance for Q1 (IIRC, and I probably do not). It took only a short time to clear up, once I got someone on the phone to look at my prior returns and see I had no liability and no back debt.

As long as the voters can be (insert your desired term here) until they cast their midterm votes... could be what the authors were focused on.

An employee can ask anything, and they will. Wise employers follow the law. Employers have enough burden, they should do only what is required, nothing more, nothing less. Employers use the most current valid W4 (other than exempt, they do not expire). If valid, they MUST follow it. Any strike through or alteration of the form makes it invalid. If no valid W4, then single zero allowances is required. There is no option on a W4 for a flat percentage. IRS Pub 15 offers no employer method for flat percentage (save for bonus type payments, which if used, will make the employee unhappy!). As both Abby and I have posted, there is a way an employee can end up with a steady dollar amount per check, but not a flat percentage. Employers may limit W4 "changes" to once in 30 days, as there are some employees who will play with their W4 fr budgeting purposes. Employers no longer have to "report" W4 to IRS if more than a certain number f allowances are claimed. Employers can report suspicious W4 forms, but I doubt many do. The IRS can issue a Lock In order to an employer, forcing the use of a certain status and allowance. The employee has a certain time to appeal such orders. If an employer does not follow the W4 as well as use an approved withholding calculation method, the employer (and likely the person preparing the payroll) can be included int he collection "chain" if the employee fails to pay their liabilities.

For those friends who know me, and ask, I have suggested they wait until July to revisit their W4 information. By then, they can extrapolate their income for the year, and what they have has withheld so far, and make any desired adjustments. I hope not, but prepare for, the calculations to be on the light side, not the conservative side, since those with a R after their name, and likely many with a D after their name, will want to "bank" on their home voters believing they gave them a raise :).

+$1 net pay is welcome. But, the liability issue will be interesting to see develop.

The 444 shows me you are using the MARRIED chart, not SINGLE. Single 0, 2018, 2307.69 Biweekly is 320, difference of 71.

Single, got it, but how many allowances on the W4?

"Net Pay increase" not "tax savings". Withholding may not reflect actual liability

There is no option for the employer to calculate withhold a flat rate, or even select a flat rate =on a W4... Now, if the employer agrees, the employee can claim a high number of allowances (which in itself, can be troublesome because of the jurat on the W4) and withhold a certain "additional" dollar amount. But either way, there is no allwalbe calculation of a flat percent an employer can use (refer to Pub 15), nor does the W4 allow an employee to request a flat %.

The reality is there are many other tax jurisdictions which use the federal "exemption" amount, and W4 information. I have no idea why, but the IRS wisely decided to come up with calculations which did not require a new W4, and did not "break" the other jurisduiction's calculations. Employers have no flat % options available, other than exceptions for bonus type payments. Employees do not like use of the allowable flat % option, since it is at higher rate than a normal calculation. There is absolutely no logic in withholding, other than to make sure it stays complicated, and for a politician to try to be able to say they increased net pay.