kcjenkins

AGES AGO, before I even started doing tax work, I had a 'friend' who could talk the ears off a basset hound. I always kept a teapot on the top of my stove, so that when I could take no more I could honestly say "I have to go, I've got something on the stove." Then just hang up fast. To this day, I keep 'something on the stove'! That was long before caller ID, today it's easier to avoid such call, of course, but cell phones reduce that somewhat. But in the office, I do think frankness is best. Simply tell them, "Sorry, but I've already given you the best advice I can, I can not do the return for you unless you are willing to pay me. The tax laws are very specific about tax advice." Then, if they ask "How much?" you say "$XX in advance". You may offer a reduced rate, but if you do, be sure you tell them that. Example: "My normal charge for that is $300, because of your circumstances I will do it for you, this one time, for $150, but since I am giving you a big discount I need to be paid up front."

What a great point.

News From the Swamp: IRS Expands Its Troubles The inspector general for the Social Security Administration (SSA) recently published a report revealing that the IRS routinely neglects to penalize employers who file W-2s with mismatched names and Social Security numbers. In effect, this has "hindered" the SSA's attempts to prevent "unauthorized noncitizens" (illegal aliens) from using fake or stolen Social Security numbers to obtain tax refunds. "Furthermore," said the report, "a senior employment tax official at the IRS acknowledged that unauthorized noncitizens accounted for a high percentage of inaccurate wage reporting." This isn't surprising, given that the IRS has issued an astounding $14 billion in refundable tax credits to illegals. In other IRS news, National Review's Eliana Johnson reports, "The second in command at the Internal Revenue Service, Beth Tucker, will retire at the end of September." As we noted in July, Tucker is one of the IRS employees who "commutes" to DC from her Texas home at obscene cost. Travel policy has since been changed. Baby steps. Finally, Republicans on Capitol Hill are still working on the investigation into IRS targeting of Barack Obama's political opponents in the lead-up to the 2012 election. Lois "Plead the Fifth" Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the scandal, remains on vacation since her May non-testimony, though Republicans still hope to compel her testimony. Exit question: Does anyone trust the IRS to implement ObamaCare?

The law in your state sets the fees a 'subpoenaed' witness must be paid in state courts. Varies from state to state Texas I know has a $10 per day fee. NY has $15. In AR, you are entitled to a witness fee calculated at the rate of $30.00 per day for attendance and $0.25 per mile for travel from the witness' residence to the place of the trial or hearing. Generally, if the witness asks for the witness fee at the time of the service of the trial subpoena, the witness fee must be paid at that time. Otherwise, you can pay the witness fee later. So if you are subpoenaed, you should ask for payment at that point. When a witness is served with a federal Subpoena in a Civil Case compelling his or her attendance, the subpoena must accompany a fee for one day's attendance and a mileage fee. If the Federal Government is subpoenaing the witness, "fees or mileage need not be tendered." The attendance fee for Federal subpoenas is governed by and described in 28 USC 1821. Witness fees are $40.00 per day and $.55½ per mile, round trip from the witness' residence to where they must appear. The subpoena must accompany the attendance fee, otherwise the service is invalid. Beginning January 1, 2013, the witness fee for government employees in California has increased from $150.00 to $275.00 per day. This is the fee that must be tendered with service of a subpoena to a qualifying witness listed in California Government Code (“GC”) section 68097.2, including California Highway Patrol, Police, Fire, and certain County & State workers. The bill raising these fees was sponsored by the California Highway Patrol because the $150 witness fee rate was established back in 1986 when costs and salaries were much lower. All fees must be must be paid at the time of service and should be made payable to the agency for which the government employee works. If the cost of the actual appearance is greater than the initial deposit of $275, then the agency will bill for the difference. If the cost of the witness is less than the deposited amount, then the agency will issue a refund. For additional information, click – Legislature bill AB2612

We all were. It's part of the growth process.

Yeah, I've had a few like that over the years.

So true.

Amazing example of the power of the human spirit when someone refuses to be defeated. http://videos.komando.com/watch/3900/viral-videos-a-polio-victims-amazing-dance?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=tvkim&utm_content=2013-09-03-article-screen-shot-b

yes, a lot of CA could use some "icy precipitation" for sure

The Internal Revenue Service has released proposed regulations that would increase the user fees for both offers in compromise and installment agreements for the first time since 2007. The proposal comes after years of successive budget cuts for the embattled agency, but the IRS has nevertheless managed to hold down the fees for paying off outstanding tax debts. Back in 2011, then-commissioner Doug Shulman announced the IRS Fresh Start program, which aimed to help individual taxpayers and small businesses struggling with tax liens and other collection tactics (see IRS Overhauls Tax Lien System). The effort included easier access to installment agreements and a streamlined offer in compromise program. Agencies such as the IRS are allowed to charge user fees, but the fees need to be fair and must be based on the costs to the government, the value of the service to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant facts. The federal Office of Management and Budget encourages agencies to charge user fees for government-provided services that confer benefits on identifiable recipients over and above those benefits received by the general public. According to an OMG regulatory circular, an agency that seeks to impose a user fee for government-provided services must calculate the full cost of providing those services. In general, the amount of a user fee should recover the cost of providing the service, unless the OMB grants an exception. The IRS currently charges $105 for entering into an installment agreement, except that the fee is $52 for a direct debit installment agreement, in which the taxpayer authorizes the IRS to request the monthly electronic transfer of funds from the taxpayer's bank account to the IRS. The fee is $43 if the taxpayer is a low-income taxpayer. The IRS currently charges $45 for restructuring or reinstating an installment agreement that is in default. The fees have not changed since 2007. The IRS said it recently completed a routine review of the installment agreement program and determined that the full cost of an installment agreement is $282, except that the cost is only $122 for a direct debit installment agreement. The IRS also determined that the full cost of restructuring or reinstating an installment agreement is $85. After discussions with the OMB, the IRS has proposed to raise the fee for entering into an installment agreement to $120, and to increase the proposed fee for restructuring or reinstating an installment agreement to $50. The fee for a direct debit installment agreement would remain $52, and low-income taxpayers would continue to pay $43 for any new installment agreement, including a direct debit installment agreement. The proposed regulations would not increase the fee for direct debit installment agreements because these agreements have a significantly higher completion rate, the IRS pointed out. The proposed fee hikes aim to balance the need to recover costs with the goals of encouraging the use of installment agreements in general and direct debit installment agreements in particular. The IRS currently charges $150 for processing an offer to compromise, except that no fee is charged if an offer is based solely on doubt as to liability, or made by a low-income taxpayer. The fee is generally applied to the unpaid taxes if the offer is accepted to promote effective tax administration or accepted based on doubt as to collectability. In the latter case, a determination must be made that collection of an amount greater than the amount offered would create economic hardship. The amount of the fee has not changed since 2003, the IRS noted. As required by the OMB Circular, the IRS recently completed a routine review of the offer to compromise program and determined that the full cost of an offer to compromise is $2,718. After discussions with OMB, the IRS has proposed to raise the fee for processing an offer to compromise to $186. Low-income taxpayers and taxpayers making offers based solely on doubt as to liability would continue to pay no fee. As now, the fee is generally applied to the unpaid taxes if the offer is accepted to promote effective tax administration or accepted based on doubt as to collectability. In the latter case, a determination must be made that collection of an amount greater than the amount offered would create economic hardship. “The proposed fee balances the need to recover costs with the goal of encouraging offers in compromise,” said the IRS. The new fee rate for both installment agreements and offers in compromise would take effect on Jan. 1, 2014.

I would modify that just a bit. "Today I learned that teenagers are obnoxious." We all love them, yet wonder how any of them survive to adulthood, because we know they deserved capital punishment several times at least.

If it was a one time payment due to the death of the insured, it may not be taxable at all. I think you need to read all the paperwork, to start. You need to know if your client was the owner of the annuity or only the beneficiary of the death benefit.

I found it hilarious that they were both 49, and claimed 86 yrs of combined experience! Meaning they each started tax work at age 6 !!! I'm glad they are going to prison, altho I do expect most of their 'victims' were also guilty of knowingly cheating, given the size of the amounts involved.

It seems so strange to me these days, that I no longer need to check the weather reports. In CA's central valley, it's almost always the same! Hot and dry during the day, cool and dry at night. Weird thing this morning, though. Since I lived most of my life in a part of the country where weather was always changing, often by way of a storm, I had a membership at TWC, to get warnings, etc. This morning I GOT AN ICYPRICP WARNING! Quickly followed by TWC ICYPRCP SalidaFRI: Sunny expected Precip 0% High: 95F We apologize for the incorrect icy precipitation message -TWC alerts

Yes, if you know they are the sort that create their own problems, and you know they are not going to change, you can either fire them, or look on it as an opportunity to make a nice high-charge amendment. As long as you charge extra for 'fixing' their mistakes, it should not bother you at all. ;~)

The Internal Revenue Service has issued final regulations for the shared responsibility payment for not maintaining minimum essential coverage under the Affordable Care Act, also known as the individual mandate. The final regulations largely finalize the rules in a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in February. The individual mandate differs from the employer mandate, which was delayed last month until January 2015 The individual mandate in contrast is still scheduled to take effect in 2014, when individuals who choose not to enroll in a health insurance program will have to pay a penalty of $95 per person per year, or 1 percent of their income, whichever is larger. The penalty will gradually increase in 2015 to $325, or 2 percent of income, and in 2016 to $695, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is bigger. There were several changes from the proposed regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS received comments asking whether medical coverage offered to employees by an organization acting on behalf of an employer qualifies as an eligible employer-sponsored plan. For example, commentators asked whether a multiemployer plan or a single-employer collectively bargained plan, such as a union-sponsored health plan, is an eligible employer-sponsored plan for the employees covered by the collective bargaining arrangement and eligible to participate in the plan. In addition, commentators asked whether a plan offered to an employer’s employees by a third party, such as a professional employer organization or leasing company, is an eligible employer-sponsored plan for the employees eligible to participate in the plan. The final regulations are revised to provide that a plan offered by an employer to an employee includes a plan offered to an employee on behalf of an employer. No inference is intended from this treatment that the third party is the employer for this or any other provision of the Code or related laws. The Defense Department’s Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefits Program also now qualifies as a government-sponsored program and an eligible employer-sponsored plan that meets the definition of minimum essential coverage. The Treasury Department and the IRS are considering whether other government-sponsored programs qualify as eligible employer-sponsored plans. The preamble to the proposed regulations explains that a self-insured group health plan is an eligible employer-sponsored plan. Several commentators requested additional clarification concerning the treatment of a self-insured group health plan because these plans are not offered in a large or small group market within a state. The rule in the proposed regulations is revised to clarify that a self-insured group health plan is an eligible employer-sponsored plan, regardless of whether the plan could be offered in the large or small group market in a state.

The IRS issued proposed regulations on August 23 that provide guidance on the tax credit available to certain small employers that offer health insurance coverage to their employees under Code Section 45R, enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Section 45R offers a tax credit to certain small employers that provide insured health coverage to their employees. The regs define an eligible small employer as an employer with no more than 25 full-time employees for the taxable year, whose employees have average annual wages of less than $50,000 per FTE (as adjusted for inflation for years after Dec. 31, 2013), and that has a qualifying arrangement in effect that requires the employer to pay a uniform percentage (not less than 50 percent) of the premium cost of a qualified health plan offered by the employer through a Small Business Health Options Program, or SHOP, Exchange. It isn’t necessary for employees to perform services in a trade or business. For example, a household employer that otherwise satisfies the requirements of Section 45R is an eligible small employer for purposes of the credit. An employer located outside the United States, including a U.S. territory, may also be an eligible small employer if the employer has income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the U.S, otherwise meets the requirements of section 45R and is able to offer a QHP to its employees through a SHOP Exchange. For taxable years beginning during or after 2014, the maximum credit for eligible small employers, other than tax exempts, is 50 percent of the small employer’s premium payments made on behalf of its employees under a qualifying arrangement. For a tax-exempt eligible small employer, the maximum is 35 percent. The employer’s tax credit is subject to a number of adjustments and limitations contained in the regs. Eligible small employers that are not tax-exempt would calculate their credit on Form 8941, Credit for Small Employer Health Insurance Premiums. The credit can be applied against both regular taxes and the Alternative Minimum Tax. For tax-exempt eligible small employers, the credit is also calculated on Form 8941, and is attached to Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return. The regs are proposed to be effective the date they are published as final in the Federal Register, and apply to taxable years beginning after 2013. If future guidance is more restrictive, it will not be applied retroactively. Comments or requests for a public hearing on the regs must be received by Nov. 25, 2013.

No one can make anyone else file a joint return against their will, not even a Judge.

A young man was lost wandering in a forest, when he came upon a small house.He knocked on the door and was greeted by an ancient Chinese man with a long, grey beard. "I'm lost," said the man. "Can you put me up for the night?" "Certainly," the Chinese man said, "but on one condition. If you so much as lay a finger on my daughter, I will inflict upon you the three worst Chinese tortures known to man." "Ok," said the man, thinking that the daughter must be pretty old as well, and entered the house. Before dinner, the daughter came down the stairs. She was young, beautiful, and had a fantastic figure. She was obviously attracted to the young man since she couldn't keep her eyes off him during the meal. Remembering the old man's warning, he ignored her and went up to bed alone. But during he night, he could bear it no longer, and sneaked into her room for a night of passion. He was careful to keep everything quiet so the old man wouldn't hear. Near dawn he crept back to his room, exhausted, but happy. He woke in the morning with the feel of pressure on his chest. Opening his eyes he saw a large rock on his chest with a note on it that read, "Chinese Torture 1: Large rock on chest." "Well, that's pretty crappy," he thought. "If that's the best the old man can do then I don't have much to worry about." He picked the boulder up, walked over to the window and threw the boulder out. As he did so he noticed another note on it that read: "Chinese Torture 2: Rock tied to left testicle." In a panic he glanced down and saw the rope that was already getting close to the end.Figuring that a few broken bones was better than castration, he jumped out of the window after the boulder. As he plummeted downward he saw a large sign on the ground that read, "Chinese Torture 3: Right testicle tied to bedpost."

Sad but true, that's how most see us. Remember back when the IRS 'corrected' the withholding tables, which had a significant excess built in? HRB immediately started advertising to come in and they would help you adjust your withholding FOR FREE! Why? Because they knew if people got less withheld they would not over-withhold = smaller refunds. And that would make their clients unhappy to tax time.

WOW

Sorry, Judy, for misunderstanding. It just really bugs me how many people I've known personally to complain, but go ahead and buy the crap. the trashy clothes, the makeup, etc.

That is so sad. I remember watching an interview several years ago with Billy Ray talking to Glen Beck, where he said "I want to be my daughter's best friend." Glen at that time suggested, very gently, that he needed to be "her Dad, not her friend". How right he was.

Only when there was an 'issue' of it being either too high or too low.

Elrod, listen again. You will get it. Judy, the truth is that if the Mom's refuse to buy trash, they will stop carrying it. Little kids, and even most teenagers, do not have the ability to pay for the stuff, so the parents can, if they grow a spine, control what their kids wear. Plus, if they make it plain WHY they object, and keep reminding their kids that they are "better than that" and should have more self-respect than to dress like whores, or 'gangstas' [because the same conversations should be held with the boys] it will have an effect. You don't, if you are smart, expect them to agree with you. Teenagers think it's REQUIRED to disagree with parents. But the thoughts you plant are still sitting in their heads, you know. And deep down, if your's is a loving home, normal kids want to please their parents, and want their parents to be proud of them. But we have to let them know what we expect, and not be so afraid of making them angry that we keep our thoughts to ourselves. And always, we should let them know that if they want trash, they have to earn the money to pay for it, we will not. Nor will we let them go out dressed in trash! Maybe you should mention to those 'younger moms' that they might be making their little girls more of a target to the pedofiles ?