kcjenkins

That is what I thought, I just thought putting it into that context would help you see it clearly. I know sometimes we have a client that we really want to help, even when we know that 'it is what it is'. You would not be the nice person you clearly are, if you did not feel that way some times. Tax code is a mess, and it hurts sometimes to see someone who does not deserve it get a huge refund, while someone who really deserves help has to pay. We've all been there, and we all understand.

In such a case, I have at least once, knowing how aggressive the new state is about demanding tax from anyone who files from their state, used the old address, then filed a Form 8822 a week later. It worked, the new state never got anything from the IRS, and we did not have to deal with writing letters to convince the new state that they were not owed a return. You can use the new address if you choose, just expect the client to later get a demand from the new state, since the IRS always gives the state information, based on the filing address on the return. I've even had a client get a PO Box in the old state, to use for filing, to avoid this where there was a lot of income involved.

Well, I'd probably ignore the old forms, then, and just start from scratch and do it the way I read the instructions to mean. That way, you can defend what you did, without any reference to his work.

I'm not that familiar with it, but I do know that the program has the forms in it, and they are pretty helpful. Did you try using the ATX form? If you go do the bunny hop on the lines, it takes you to the detail, where there are pull-down menus to select from, and much of the work is then done for you, such as determining the codes, class, rates, etc.

Well, sure, that is the 'why' behind their concern, naturally.

Well, personally, I have no problem faulting the IRS for not giving the small family business an easier option than they do. But I do understand that they are dealing with 'the law', and so I guess the real blame should go to the dunderheads in Congress who write the law. And make it more complicated then it needs to be, in this case. Still, it's not always that horrible to do an extra C. It's only a problem when, as is often the case, there are depreciable assets to consider. Splitting those is where the problem occurs. A lot of extra work that benefits no-one. I can't say that I blame CCH for wanting to keep a few extra refinements for their high-end product. I was really impressed, tho, that they added the K-1 importing to our program, something that you used to have to pay the big bucks for. It's a wonderful addition, IMHO. A real time-saver when there are many partners. It cut my time significantly last week, when I did an LLC with 6 members, all of whom are my clients for their personal returns as well. Worked like a charm.

None taken, Zeke.

Timing differences are a pain, but it's not your fault either. We just have to deal with them as the law is written, which means sometimes it is not fair, but it is 'correct'. And coming back and amending later is sometimes the only legal option, in which case I do not feel like a creep for doing so. You're only a 'creep' if you cause the problem and then charge for fixing it, IMHO.

Marilyn, I understand that you are angry about the extra work that really accomplishes nothing. But be angry at the IRS, not the messengers. Perhaps we can all send suggestions for next year, not now but in April, that ATX offer us a new worksheet form that we could input the 'joint venture' data in, and put in the percentages [yes, it is usually 50/50 but not always] and then the program would split it into the two C's as well as into the two SEs. I suspect that if enough of us request it, politely, at the time when they are starting work on the new year's program, it might be included.

Like maybe take under a company that is struggling already, which was why they had to lay off? Congress loves to try to 'fix' things but they often do not take into consideration the residual effects of their generosity. Just like the auto industry, that on the one hand they are trying to save jobs, while at the same time with the other hand they are demanding CAFE standards that are killing jobs.

Have the client take the exact specs to the dealer, and get a written statement of what the dealer would pay him for it, at the time he won it. Use that to add an 'adjustment to reflect FMV' to the line 21 entries, down on the blue lines to reduce the 1099 amount. In other words, show the full 1099 amount, then 'adjust' it down. The law only requires him to report the FMV of any prize.

I have the 'draft' form installed, so if I had to file one today, I'd use that to calculate, then I'd go to the IRS site, and fill out and print the form, and paper file. Now ideal, I agree, but workable.

That is what I would choose, if possible, too, Zeke. But if they need to take the bonus depreciation, my answer was to deal with the 'how' of reporting the adjustment.

As long as you make the adjustment on the asset entry, you should not have to override the state, you just go to the IA4562A form, and fill it out to make the Iowa adjustment. Once you fill it out, it will make the adjustment on line 14 worksheet

It's clearly a business and not a hobby, if she's keeping five kids. And besides, if it was a hobby it would still be taxable, but honestly, I don't see anyone having a HOBBY of CHILDCARE. That is just not believable. But I'm sure she has some expenses, and that should reduce some of the tax bite. But you have to divorce your sympathy for the client from your responsibility to 'fairly report' the income and expenses. She worked, she earned the money, and she has to pay the tax on it, including the SE tax. Would you be trying to change the numbers on her W2, if she had earned that income at a regular job? Just because that made her make too much to get EIC? I don't think so. It's the same thing.

Or you can go ahead and file a 1065, and then the K1s go into the personal return for each of them. There are some advantages, in some situations, to filing the 1065.

The IRS made them take it off, because it was only supposed to be used in CP states, and was being used widely in other states. They want you to either file a 1065 or to file two separate Sch Cs, one each, splitting the income and expenses between them.

Well, at least one of your kids remembered. But did HE give you a gift? Or did he just 'remember' when the flowers showed up? Don't feel too bad, RC. One year EVERYONE in my family, husband and all three sons, forgot to get ME a SINGLE CHRISTMAS PRESENT. NOT ONE. And all the boys were old enough then to buy their own presents, by the way. They still feel guilty about that, after 16 years, and I can't say I've ever tried to make them feel better about it. I've never believed in counting the number of gifts, and making sure each one got exactly the same number, etc. But I must admit, I did feel a bit neglected that day . But the aftermath was very nice.

That is why the company does it that way, frankly, because they do not want their salespeople getting in trouble for not paying sales tax, which most of them probably would, if left to their own devices.

It was a hilarious part of his program, as he had a dozen good lines using that 'name'. Any one who did not see it can see what we are talking about by going to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is1cWidwP2M and watch it.

Yes, they do the rollover hoping that they get a new job and can leave it there, then, when they decide that they need to spend it, they take it back out. It's too bad that they do not talk to us first, because sometimes, at least, proper planning would give them at least some possibility of excluding some of it from penalty. But we don't usually hear about it in time. Had one who used his IRA money because he "did not want to lose money by cashing his CD [regular non-IRA savings] early"!!**!!! You know, that darn 'early withdrawal penalty? That 2% 'early withdrawal penalty, that he avoided. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Yes, it's a pain, but I believe it was the IRS that made them remove that option, because too many [in their opinion] were using it that were not in CP states. So now, even in CP states, you have to do two Sch Cs, not just two SEs.

Today you and I, Jainen, are in full agreement on this subject! I think we need to test the air in DC and surrounding areas, I think some sort of chemical warfare is being used against us by making our political leaders into imbeciles.

Read the instructions at the top of the form, and you will see that you are to enter the info as a W-2, and as David says, it should be marked 'nonstandard'. And if you read the instructions, you will see that it says in the second paragraph "Generally, do not file Form 4852 before April 15th." That is because they want the t/p to make every reasonable effort to get the W-2 from their employer. And let's be honest, we know that often the client just does not want to be bothered with making much effort, they are just in a hurry to get their refund. Or perhaps they know the employer is holding their W2 for them to come pick it up, [and return their uniform, or some such?] and they don't want to do that.

This just came in from the bank, and might be at least a hint of what the problem could be on some of the delays. February 14th 2009 "For immediate release" VERIFICATION OF EIC CLAIMS Based on our analysis of the last three funding cycles, we have seen that the IRS has begun an aggressive campaign to verify EIC claims. This has resulted in a large number of bifurcated and unfunded refunds where the EIC portion of the refund is being withheld. This is affecting primarily large EIC claims including those with good prior year history and consistent dependant claims. Since we only received the non-EIC portion of the refund for these types of returns, we know that the IRS clearly needs additional work to be performed in order to pay out the EIC portion. We will be sending out a letter to those affected clients starting next week. This will result in an immediate change in our RAL criteria as it relates to large EIC claims. You will notice more denials, regardless of prior year history, starting Friday, February the 13th. WE NEED YOUR HELP. You should ensure that you request and keep documentation proving EIC claims, even for prior year clients. For returns already filed, we need every effort that can be made by the tax professionals to help those clients provide whatever documentation is necessary to the IRS, and it would need to be done within a 30 day period. Please generate a Past Due RAL report (or any other method to see which returns containing EIC are past the expected funding date) and contact the taxpayer to start the process with the IRS. The IRS website will also confirm which returns are requiring additional paperwork to verify the EIC claim. It is important that affected taxpayers be contacted in a timely manner. We thank you for your support. Even those of us who do no RALs may still be affected, when clients get their refunds held up or split. So we should all reconsider telling the client the 'refund cycle' date as a near-sure-thing, especially with those who's refund includes a large EIC factor.