rickart

If it's the first filing for an entity, make sure that the box is checked for "initial return" else it may fail the database check.

Hi All, Does ATX have a form for doing the California NOL for AMT (which I presume would be something based on the CA 3805V)? Unlike, let's say, 1040 Schedule D, there doesn't appear to be one. Where should I look? Thanks in Advance.

We had a similar issue for a 1065 last year. IRS e-file help seems to have a limit on what they will tell you (even with a POA). The agent kept saying the right thing, i.e., look at the original of the notification letter (which has a form number I can't rememebr today). It turned out that the client misread a digit in the EIN on his copy of the notification letter In any event, the erroneous EIN generates the same error message you cite. Not very informative msg! [We had to get the client to dig out the original of the notification Good luck

Until the IRS lets us file 1040Xs electronically, you are stuck doing a paper 1040X MFJ adding W to H's previously e-filed MFS return.

One clue is to look at the information return TP got from plan. Quick & dirty: Qual plans generate 1099Rs; Non-qual generates a W-2. [i get one of each from my former employer.]

I'm sure that at some point (perhaps in 2000 - 2002), someone has to have figured out how to handle this in ATX: Client exercised ISO in mid-2007, but held the stock. Big AMT addition for 6251 line 13 for '07. In early '08 Client sold the stock, early enough that there was a disqualifying disposition (held less than one year). Accordingly, the regular tax ordinary income goes on line 7 or line 21 depending on whether client can get w-2 from former employer (the issuer). Question is how to get the right data into and out of the AMT Sched. D without creating other problems in ATX's calculations of other amounts (e.g., on 6251 or 8801). Have thought that maybe entering the sales price in the regular tax basis column, but using the real AMT basis for the stock, would get to the right answers. I am concerned, however, that there is some calculations "back in the worksheets" that would be thrown off. If possible, I'm trying to preserve e-filing the return, but that's secondary. Any suggestions from the long-term ATX'ers? TIA & Regards, Rick

I know it's because I'm sleep deprived (or something equivalent), but at 8:30 AM PDT I can't find where this message is currently posted. Could somebody who *has* seen it tell me where it was/is? BTW I would really appreciate your looking to make sure it hasn't been "un-posted" (which wouldn't be comforting). TIA & Regards, Rick

Would somebody out there who has more working gray cells than I do, address the question of whether there shouldn't have been OID taken (or reported on a 1099 OID) for the bond bought for significantly less than face value. I think (?) that the accrued interest issue is different (and *has* been addressed above. [if OID, which is reported as interest on Sch. B, has been recognized (though not received), it steps up the TPs basis, I believe.] Good luck all One more crisis day.... regards, Rick, EA, Tucson

It sure looks down at 11:30 pacific. Can't get acks or upload returns. TECH SUPPORT SAYS "JUST KEEP TRYING" -- AS IF THAT WILL HELP A BROKEN SYSTEM. IT APPEARS TO BE THE SAME KIND OF TROUB LE THAT LACERTE EXPERIENCED LAST YEAR. SOMEHOW THESE PEOPLE SEEM TO BE SURPRISED THAT THERE IS HEAVY E-FILING VOLUME ON THE 14TH AND 15TH. OH WELL........................... :o

On My ATX go to the highlighted link (sort of southeast of the "dependents" label) and hit "extension." Maybe something will show up there. (Don't have pending e-4868 to check, but it's what I remember from last night) Good Luck Rick PS it takes some while (not sure just how long) for this Database to sync up with the EFC database, i.e., right after you transmit the DB is "empty". Oh, well.....

Though it may not affect too many of your clients, it appears that the Form 8829 (which does not draw from the asset entry sheet) is incorrectly calculating AMT depreciation for pre-1999 properties (e.g. homes put in service in 1998 and before). F. 8829 is using 39-year SL MidMonth, not 40-year SL MM. The differences are usually small (2.500%AMT - 2.564%MACRS), but the pain factor of filing a 3115 to correct the issue probably outweighs the money involved. Regards, Rick, EA, Tucson

Being new to ATX this year I don't know when to expect ATX to have a Form 4868 that's approved for e-file. What has been the practice in prior years (if that's relevant)? In prior years had the "multiple" option worked for e-filing extensions? [i know the 7004s worked electronically, but the 4868 generates an exception in the e-file menu for the open return.] We like e-filing 4868s because there is less logistic hassle and you get an ACK (usually reasonably promptly). Thanks in advance, Rick Art, EA, Tucson

Depending on what the judge in the case does, what the final order looks like, and some other particulars, press reports (eg. http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/S...0News/1156587/) suggest the shareholders may be getting $6.79/share. I know that would be a pretty big loss for many, but IRS might say the stock isn't worthless, yet, or hasn't been right along. Another example of the grief that keeps on giving. "Sit tight" might be the best strategy.

I'm new to ATX. I am sure that the answer to this is somewhere in the forum archive, but I can't find it. Though I know it's possible from the IRS perspective to e-file statements (e.g., adding further detail they need to know such as that Box 14 Amounts show the ISO exercises at amount $X that are included in Box1 or that there are more lines to the Form X Line Y and here's the detail). I know how to do it in Lacerte and some other software, but not for sure in ATX. Does using Forms -> Lists -> Create Statement do the trick to get what's in that statement transmitted with the e-file for the return? Best regards and TIA, Rick Art

We have a client with a similar problem (though it's TP and Ex-Spouse in our case). The first to e-file claiming the dependent (rightly or wrongly) will cause a rejection of any subsequent e-file claiming that dependent. You are probably stuck with filing on paper in that event. The IRS will eventually send a CP notice, but the first round of that is 4-5 months later and merely invites each of the taxpayers to file a 1040X "correcting" their possible mistake. If there's still a conflict after some length of time (couple of months), i.e. if no one amends, then the subsequent correspondence from the exam people will ask for further information (according to Practitioner Priority Services). Good luck.