kcjenkins

Great response, Cat. That comment from Lion about becoming a killer really bothered me, too. Your answer was much better than mine would have been. She's a nice person, I hope she takes your words to heart. No peaceful person, doing nothing wrong, should feel guilty for simply defending themselves or others against a violent attacker. I have never heard it expressed better than " To save your own life is to protect a gift given to you by your Creator, against one who has no right to take it from you." I especially liked your summation. "Again I will say: the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Firearms exist. The bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get their hands on them. We can either let the bad guys have ALL of them, or we can stop interfering with the good guys trying to own them legally. And the purpose of the Second Amendment is to insure that the government NEVER stops the citizenry from owning firearms, as that is OUR last defense against tyranny in government. "

Good advice, except the last bit. A physical assault would put the client in the wrong. While the roommate certainly deserves it, in today's legal climate it's bad advice.

Tom, you are in CA, what can you tell us about their program? Who does it cover?

From "Accounting Today" The Internal Revenue Service was not in compliance with all requirements of a 2010 law that increased agency accountability for reducing improper payments in federal programs, according to a new report that cited the high rate of improper payments for the Earned Income Tax Credit. The report, released publicly Monday by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, found that the only program the IRS has identified for improper-payment reporting is the Earned Income Tax Credit Program. The IRS estimates that 21 to 25 percent of EITC payments were issued improperly in fiscal year 2012. The dollar value of these improper payments was estimated to be between $11.6 billion and $13.6 billion. However, TIGTA auditors found that the IRS has not established annual improper payment reduction targets for the EITC and has not reported an improper payment rate of less than 10 percent. This is the second consecutive year that the IRS has not been in compliance with IPERA. The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010, also known as IPERA, increased agency accountability for reducing improper payments in federal programs and required agencies to identify programs that are at high risk for improper payments. Agencies are also required to set annual improper payment reduction targets for high risk programs. TIGTA initiated its audit because IPERA requires TIGTA to assess the IRS’s compliance with improper payment requirements. The objective of its review was to assess the IRS’s compliance with IPERA. The Treasury Department identifies the programs for which the IRS must assess the risk of improper payments. The IRS compiles the required information and forwards it to the Treasury for inclusion in the department’s agency financial report. TIGTA's analysis of the information provided by the IRS to the Treasury indicated that the IRS is not in compliance with all IPERA requirements. “Although the IRS has implemented a number of programs over the years to address Earned Income Tax Credit improper payments, our auditors have found that the IRS faces significant challenges to becoming compliant with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act,” said TIGTA Inspector General J. Russell George in a statement. Specifically, the process the Department uses to assess the risk of improper payments within its bureaus does not effectively assess the risk of improper payments in tax administration, TIGTA found. In addition, the ever-changing population of EITC claimants makes it difficult for the IRS to gain lasting improvements in EITC compliance through outreach, education and enforcement. TIGTA made no recommendations in this report. However, prior reports contained five specific recommendations for improvement to which the IRS agreed. The prior reports evaluated the IRS’s compliance with improper payment requirements contained in Executive Order 13520 and the adequacy of the IRS’s fiscal year 2011 assessment of the risk of improper payments. In response to the report, IRS CFO Pamela J. LaRue pointed out that the report had stated, “ased on materiality, it is reasonable to omit [Earned Income Tax Credit] underpayments when computing the Fiscal Year 2012 improper payment rate. However, the IRS should continue to evaluate the significance of EITC underpayments annually and ensure that underpayments are included in its annual estimate of the EITC improper payment rate if warranted.” “The IRS will continue to evaluate the significance of underpayments and report on that in the Fiscal Year 2013 estimate,” she said.

Please do not put words in my mouth, or ASSUME that you know my opinion, even when you admit it is " your undeclared point of view from your biased right wing" POV. I have NEVER suggested that the IRS should not go after cheaters. In fact, I have often griped about them not going after cheaters that their own software should make easy to find. Today, there is a good article in Accounting Today, about that very thing. This is from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, not generally called a "biased right wing web site". IRS Not in Compliance with Improper Payments Law The Internal Revenue Service was not in compliance with all requirements of a 2010 law that increased agency accountability for reducing improper payments in federal programs, according to a new report that cited the high rate of improper payments for the Earned Income Tax Credit. The report, released publicly Monday by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, found that the only program the IRS has identified for improper-payment reporting is the Earned Income Tax Credit Program. The IRS estimates that 21 to 25 percent of EITC payments were issued improperly in fiscal year 2012. The dollar value of these improper payments was estimated to be between $11.6 billion and $13.6 billion. However, TIGTA auditors found that the IRS has not established annual improper payment reduction targets for the EITC and has not reported an improper payment rate of less than 10 percent. This is the second consecutive year that the IRS has not been in compliance with IPERA. The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010, also known as IPERA, increased agency accountability for reducing improper payments in federal programs and required agencies to identify programs that are at high risk for improper payments. Agencies are also required to set annual improper payment reduction targets for high risk programs. TIGTA initiated its audit because IPERA requires TIGTA to assess the IRS’s compliance with improper payment requirements. The objective of its review was to assess the IRS’s compliance with IPERA. The Treasury Department identifies the programs for which the IRS must assess the risk of improper payments. The IRS compiles the required information and forwards it to the Treasury for inclusion in the department’s agency financial report. TIGTA's analysis of the information provided by the IRS to the Treasury indicated that the IRS is not in compliance with all IPERA requirements. “Although the IRS has implemented a number of programs over the years to address Earned Income Tax Credit improper payments, our auditors have found that the IRS faces significant challenges to becoming compliant with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act,” said TIGTA Inspector General J. Russell George in a statement. Specifically, the process the Department uses to assess the risk of improper payments within its bureaus does not effectively assess the risk of improper payments in tax administration, TIGTA found. In addition, the ever-changing population of EITC claimants makes it difficult for the IRS to gain lasting improvements in EITC compliance through outreach, education and enforcement. TIGTA made no recommendations in this report. However, prior reports contained five specific recommendations for improvement to which the IRS agreed. The prior reports evaluated the IRS’s compliance with improper payment requirements contained in Executive Order 13520 and the adequacy of the IRS’s fiscal year 2011 assessment of the risk of improper payments. In response to the report, IRS CFO Pamela J. LaRue pointed out that the report had stated, “ased on materiality, it is reasonable to omit [Earned Income Tax Credit] underpayments when computing the Fiscal Year 2012 improper payment rate. However, the IRS should continue to evaluate the significance of EITC underpayments annually and ensure that underpayments are included in its annual estimate of the EITC improper payment rate if warranted.” “The IRS will continue to evaluate the significance of underpayments and report on that in the Fiscal Year 2013 estimate,” she said.

I hope every Drake user will encourage Drake to try to get a special 'bundle' price for their customers from SuperForms or some other good forms package. That was ATX's strong point, having such a fantastic number of forms. Drake should be big enough to negotiate a discount price for their users.

Joel, your post exactly expresses what we used ATX for. I'm not a lawyer, but one of my sons is, and he used the program just as you describe. While I, in the "Accounting" end of my part of the business, used things like the sales tax forms, payroll forms, etc, a lot. It was a tremendous tool. I hope every Drake user will encourage Drake to try to get a special 'bundle' price for their customers from SuperForms or some other good forms package.

Lion, great post, you make a lot of good points. [ I suspect, tho, that a lot of our members simply do not charge enough, so the difference in a $1500 program and a $5 to 6K program is quite a few more returns. ] Still, at least they should certainly demo a couple of high-end programs, and make note of the increased speed, automation, formats, etc. Because, as you say, if it saves you the time to do significantly more returns, and with more confidence in the review function, it may pay for itself, while giving you a bit more time for your personal life, as well.

Joel, I assure you I have not removed ANY of your posts. SLC, no one can see anyone's warning post except their own. It's a private thing.

Practitioner Priority Service ® Practitioner Priority Service—Your First Point of Contact Tax practitioners have long served an important role in our nation's tax collection system as a conduit between taxpayers and the IRS. The Practitioner Priority Service (PPS) is your first point of contact for account-related issues. Our Practitioner Priority Service is a professional support line (1-866-860-4259) staffed by IRS customer service representatives specially trained to handle practitioners' accounts questions. PPS is available to all practitioners with valid third party authorizations, i.e., Forms 2848, 8821 and/or 8655. PPS service hours are weekdays: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time (Alaska and Hawaii follow Pacific time) 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. local time for Puerto Rico Depending on your response to the initial prompt, your call is routed to one of five PPS locations and routing is based on an evaluation of the lowest expected wait time. Questions regarding client's individual tax accounts (IMF) are handled by one of three campus sites: Brookhaven, NY; Memphis, TN; and Philadelphia, PA. Questions regarding client's business accounts (BMF) are handled by two campus sites: Cincinnati, OH and Ogden, UT. Services provided by PPS assistors are: Locating and applying payments Resolving taxpayer account problems on active accounts Explaining IRS communications (i.e. notices and letters) Providing general procedural guidance and timeframes Providing one of the self-help methods to obtain forms and publications Providing transcripts of taxpayer accounts Provide Forms 1099 and W-2 information Securing taxpayer income verification Issues outside the scope of the PPS employees' authority are transferred or referred to the appropriate IRS functions such as: Tax Law questions Accounts assigned to Automated Collection Services (ACS) or Automated Under Reporter (AUR) Accounts assigned to a Revenue Officer or Revenue Agent Of the PPS assistor cannot transfer the call, the assistor will provide the caller with the appropriate contact telephone number.

BOSTON (The Borowitz Report)—Authorities who have spent the past forty-eight hours combing CNN in the hopes of finding any information whatsoever have called off their search, they confirmed today. “After monitoring every minute of CNN’s broadcast since Monday, we have found hearsay, rumors, falsehoods, and a steady stream of inane commentary,” one authority said. “Everything but information.” The announcement was the second black eye today for CNN, which earlier in the afternoon recanted all of its reporting dating back to mid-2009. Newly installed CNN chief Jeff Zucker acknowledged that the network had experienced “a rough patch” since he took over earlier this year, but added, “At least no one was watching.”

A pair of Congressmen have introduced legislation that would allow the Internal Revenue Service to provide taxpayers with a tax form already containing information received from employers and banks to streamline the tax prep process. The two Illinois Democrats, Rep. Bill Foster and Mike Quigley, introduced the Autofill Act of 2013 last Friday to simplify the process of filling out federal income tax forms and save taxpayers time and money. Taxpayers spend an estimated 6.1 billion hours a year complying with the Tax Code and an average of over $200 on tax preparation fees. The Autofill Act of 2013 would create a voluntary tax filing program that would allow individuals to log in to a secure IRS Web site and download a tax form automatically populated with information the IRS already collects from employers, the Social Security Administration and financial institutions. “Our Tax Code is complicated enough,” Foster said in a statement. “We shouldn’t be asking taxpayers to submit information the IRS already has. It’s time to bring the tax filing system into the 21st century with a commonsense solution that reduces the burden on taxpayers and decreases the costs associated with filling out tax forms.” The information from the populated tax forms would be available as both a printable document file and a computer-readable form that would be compatible with existing tax preparation software. Taxpayers could simply review the returns for accuracy and sign at the bottom, saving them time, money and anxiety. The Autofill Act of 2013 is estimated to save $2 billion a year in tax prep fees and 225 million hours of time. In California, the state’s two tax filing programs, which also pre-populate tax forms, save the state an estimated $500,000 annually and 98 percent of users have indicated that they would use it again.

Oh yes, the msm does not report these 'local stories' because it does not support the side they are pushing. There are, however, thousands such events every year and in the majority of cases, when a 'victim' pulls a gun, whether they fire it or not, the bad guys run. See, criminals are usually lazy, which is one reason for their choice of occupation, and often cowards as well. It's much easier to run away from an armed 'victim' and go find an easier target later.

Not especially unusual, but I'd give the help desk a call and ask for help tracing the status of the refund.

Probably not, because there is no more ATX. ATX was a great company, but since CCH bought it, it is just a brand name, and clearly not one that CCH values.

Hey, you can start this sort of training in kindergarten, Jack. In fact, use the little kid's favorite question to start the process. Ask THEM "why" whenever they say something that indicates they are parroting something that you know is wrong or is incomplete. And keep right on asking "why?" all the way through high school. It's a very powerful question, that makes the person have to think about what they just said, and think about how to defend it. Then you can add, "what else might work?" to get them even deeper into thinking, not just accepting. You do not have to explain those three points, those are for you. The kids just need to be mentally challenged to think instead of just accepting, everything else flows from that.

Two issues here. One, if the bank let them draft on an account that did not have the taxpayer on the signature card, the bank is at fault and you have legal recourse against them. Two, this sounds like ID Fraud, which the IRS is very serious about, and I am guessing so are all states. So I'd certainly contact the state right away. But I'd sure talk to the bank, they know the name of the taxpayer on that draft, whether they admit it or not. If they don't respond with help right away, make a [polite] scene in the bank, raising your voice [politely] and letting everyone around you hear what the problem is. I know from experience that banks HATE that sort of thing, and will try real hard to avoid such, or cut off such scenes by helping you solve the problem.

Look for the thread named "NOT sticking with ATX" for an excellent discussion from Joel on Drake.

Good review, Joel, very helpful. I also expect that the Drake family, who still owns Drake software, is smart enough to look at the field and realize that they are ideally placed to dominate the lower-to-mid price range market, if they don't do anything but continue to offer a solid product at a fair price, with excellent service. I'd advise them, if I were in a position to do so, to keep where they are, but consider trying to get some sort of bundling deal with one of the good forms programs. That would make them a killer prospect for those of us who hung on so long to ATX because of their wonderful range of forms.

Totally agree, Jack. Our kids are NOT being taught 'critical thinking' at all in school today. All parents and grandparents need to teach this vital lesson to their kids at home. It is essential if they are going to grow into competent voters and consumers, and if you do not give them lessons in it, they will never even realize how they are being manipulated by both business advertising and by politicians. There are some good sources available to help you get started. Just a teaser to think about: [No links, Tom] Underlying Strategies (The three underlying strategies are “Reflection, Reasons, Alternatives” (RRA): 1. Urge students to be Reflective, to stop and think, instead of making snap judgments, or accepting the first idea that comes into their heads, or automatically accepting whatever is presented in the media. 2. Gently ask such questions as “How do you know”, "What are the reasons?" and “Is that a good source of information?” thus prodding them to have good Reasons for their views and to seek reasons for others' views. 3. Emphasize alertness for Alternative hypotheses, conclusions, explanations, sources of evidence, points of view, plans, etc.

TWO MASSACHUSETTS BANKRUPTCY JUDGES HAVE REJECTED THE McCOY RULE AND FOUND TAXES DISCHARGEABLE NOTWITHSTANDING THE RETURNS WERE FILED LATE In re Brown, --- B.R. ----, 2013 WL 951797 (Bankr. D. Mass., March 11, 2013); In re Perkins, Case No. 3:10-bk-31470, Adv. Proc. No. 3:12-ap-3030 (Bankr. D. Mass., April 8, 2013). These cases were brought to our attention by Robin Miller, whose online case reporting system CBAR.pro is a valuable tool for keeping up on emerging issues. Writes Robin: In Brown Judge Melvin S. Hoffman rejected the McCoy rule. I've just discovered that two other judges at the same court are hearing cases presenting the same issue, and one of them, Judge Henry J. Boroff, has issued a short order adopt[ing] in its entirety the reasoning of the Brown decisio n. See In re Perkins, Case No. 3:10-bk-31470, Adv. Proc. No. 3:12-ap-3030 (Bankr. D. Mass., April 8, 2013). The other judge is Judge William C. Hillman, who has the issue pending in three cases: Fahey, Case No. 1:12-ap-1204; Segnitz, Case No. 1:12-ap-1214; and Pendergast, Case No. 1:12-ap-1215. He hasn't yet rendered a decision. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue has stated that it may be appealing one or more of these decisions but is waiting for Judge Hillman to rule before deciding what to do. The other two judges have accommodated MDOR by withholding final judgment in their cases. I'll be watching to see whether there is an appeal, and, if there is one, I'll be tracking it. Said the court in In re Brown (not to be confused with the recent Brown case that followed the McCoy rule); "I believe the MDOR’s interpretation of § 523(a) is ill-conceived and unjustified. Interpreting the definitional paragraph of § 523(a) to mean that all late-filed Massachusetts tax returns are not returns renders virtually meaningless § 523(a)(1)((ii), arguably the most frequently resorted-to subsection of § 523(a)(1). "The interpretation of the definitional paragraph advanced by the MDOR and the decisions upon which it relies, rewrites § 523(a)(1)((ii) so that it no longer covers late-filed returns filed more than two years prior to bankruptcy but merely covers late filed returns prepared pursuant to § 6020(a) of the Internal Revenue Code or similar statutes. "The IRS Chief Counsel Notice CC–2010–016, 2010 WL 3617597 (Sept. 10, 2010), refers to the number of § 6020(a) returns as “minute” and observes that taxpayers do not even have the right to demand that the IRS prepare such returns on their behalf. "For all practical purposes, therefore, the interpretation advocated by the MDOR renders § 523(a)(1)((ii) a nullity". Click Here For Full Text of Brown Opinion Click Here For Full Text of Perkins Order click here For more on the fight against the McCoy rule or go to the web page LateFiledReturn.com. KING SAYS: THE McCOY RULE VIOLATES OBVIOUS CANONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Morgan King's third essay on the flaws in the 5th Circuit's McCoy rule (that a late-filed return is by definition not a return for discharge purposes) appeared in March 2013 in the NACBA newsletter and also the newsletter for the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center. The article is reprinted here in its entirety. ___________________ WHAT’S WRONG WITH MCCOY? By Morgan D. King, Esq.,1 of the California Bar King, King & King; Pleasanton, Calif. The Bankruptcy Code explicitly provides for the discharge of tax debts even when a taxpayer files a late return. Section 523(a)(1)((ii) states that tax debts may be dischargeable if the taxpayer files a timely tax return, or if a late return is filed more than two years prior to the petition date.2 Despite the plain language of the Code, in In re McCoy the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a late filed tax return is not a “return” for purposes of the Bankruptcy code (the “McCoy Rule”). The result is that a tax debt for which a late return was filed can never be discharged. This major departure from past practice is not warranted by either the plain language of the Code or the legislative history of BAPCPA, neither of which suggests that Congress intended to make tax debts related to late filed returns non-dischargeable in all circumstances.4 The McCoy Decision The McCoy Rule completely disregards section 523(a)(1)((ii), which according to the Fifth Circuit plays no role in the dischargeability analysis. Instead, the court in McCoy relied exclusively on the hanging paragraph of section 523(a)(19). In relevant part, the hanging paragraph states: more ... CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE

YEP.

That should do it Gene.

Cat, Ill keep you in my prayers.