kcjenkins

I don't think it is extravagant, because in out business, TIME is the one most scarce resource we have, and using multiple monitors can make us more productive by SAVING US TIME by allowing us to have this year's return on one monitor, last years return on another, and this year's client documents on a third, research source on a fourth, etc. You could even have one extra monitor [mounted on the wall, perhaps] that you could use for anything you want to show your client.

Actually, it depends on two things. One is state law, which may include the bank accounts in the estate, or might not. And second, it depends on the paperwork at the bank. If the brothers were on the account as owners of the account in a Joint Account With Right of Survivorship [JWRS account] then they do own the bank account. If they were just on the account as a convenience, then they do not own it. Let me give you an example. If you work for ABC Corp, as the manager of the local ABC store, you may be on the company bank account, but not be an owner. Or if you work for Joe's QuickStop, a Sch C business, and are on the checking account because you manage the store and need to be able to pay for deliveries, etc, you don't own that account, and if the owner of the account dies, you do not get the money. The account will generally be controlled by the account card, contract, etc., entered into with the bank at the time the account was opened. Under state law the bank is insulated/protected from any liability to the estate of the deceased owner, for paying out the funds to the other/surviving person named on the account. However, depending upon your particular fact situation, the estate of the deceased account owner may have a right of recovery, IF the deceased would have had such a right during her lifetime, such as where the deceased had placed ALL the funds into that account, and by adding the name of the other family member only intended them to have access in the event of an emergency or incapacity -- not intending any gift of the funds, not during their lifetime, nor upon death. Generally, such an account will/should have been designated as a "right of survivorship" account if such "gift" after death was intended. And if so, then the surviving name on the account owns the funds outright and the estate has no interest in the monies. So you need to have the sons check with the bank as to whether it is an account with 'right of survivorship' or not.

Before we give suggestions, how about you give us your hoped for price range, the speed you want, and whether you want a scanner - printer combination, or want two separate machines?

I've noticed that a lot of you have never put anything at all into your member profile. While you are not required to put anything at all there, it would really be nice if everyone would at least put in their general location, at least the state you are in. And any other info that is relevant, like if you are a CPA, EA, CPTx, CFP, etc, your age, even your hobbies, if you wish, could help others when it comes to replying to you, perhaps. This is not a requirement, but I do think it could enhance the value of this board, to have more info available about our members. Please consider it. KC

Eric, I'd be happy, also, to review your return for you, or just to do it for you myself. If you want me to, you know how to send it to me. KC

Perhaps you should add that info to your 'profile', Margaret. Although I don't think that Pacun meant to be insulting, really. I think he just meant to suggest that you could best help in this as a consultant to the lawyers, on the tax issues, but that your client should let the lawyers do the negotiations. And I agree with him on that. Using a lawyer in such a complex issue should not be seen by the University as an attack. And a good lawyer will follow the clients wishes, if he wants his needs presented as non-confrontationally as possible. But it is a matter of legal issues, here, and so bringing in a lawyer is just plain old common sense, rather than a threatening move. Just as someone should use a 'closing agent' when they buy or sell a house, and they use a tax professional when they have complex tax returns, and they use a specialist when they have a serious health problem, they should use an employment law attorney when they negotiate a complex employment issue. That is just being sensible, and I hope you can help your client to see that.

Yes, I see it that way also. Frankly, these days, with tax law not only much more complex than it used to be, but with a population that seems more and more primed to sue everyone any time anything goes wrong, I am surprised at the number of users who do not buy or use tax research at all, just depending on boards such as these, [great as we all are, of course ] and asking others to do their research for them. During our busiest, and most stressed out times, is when most of the more complex issues seem to arise. And depending on getting the right answer in a timely fashion by relying on the generosity of friends seems a dangerous way to run a business. I think I'm pretty good at tax knowledge, but I use the TTO research sources a LOT, during tax season especially. I may fire off an answer here 'off the top of my head' from time to time, but even if I think I know the answer, before I finalize a return, I check that belief against the official sources, first. Sometimes I am wrong, simply because the law has either changed, or a court ruling has limited or expanded a rule. Sometimes it is because of some exception, and while my first answer used to be right, and perhaps still is right for some cases, it is no longer right for the specific situation at hand. I owe it to my clients to be sure, first. And when you look at the cost of the program combined with the research, I truly do not think that there is another package that gives as much, at close to the price, as ATX does now. And, of course, the new features, the Document Management system and the Trial Balance, should make it an even better bargain.

Just don't let yourself be intimidated by the fact that you are learning 'new stuff'. It helps your mental state-of-mind to remind yourself that tax law changes so often these days that everyone needs to take courses to keep up to date, and anyone who learned their tax law 5 years ago, and has not kept on studying since, now is out of date on close to half of what they think they 'know'. So while I think Jainen is right, and you should take it in small bites, rather than try to add too many new areas in one leap, it's not something to be afraid of, either. If you stay in this occupation, you will be studying, and learning new laws, every year for the rest of your working life, if you want to remain competent. Good luck.

Yes, of course, if he charged them more then donated the extra, he would be able to take a charitable deduction, but he'd also owe tax on the income, and SE tax as well. So he'd be worse off by doing that. Why would he want to do that? What he can do is to deduct any mileage he might have while doing the work. But odds are he's already doing that, anyway.

SCL, I will merely point out again that this started with a question about tax policy, not politics per se. And that no one was 'disparaged' or insulted by me. Tax policy is a subject that I believe is one of the things we SHOULD be able to discuss, because it affects us all, and our clients as well. Just as a simple, and current, example, the new preparer penalties in the latest tax law were to take effect as of May 25. Discussion among tax professionals on boards like this led to many thoughtful arguments for delaying them during a 'transitional' period, and to many letters to the IRS explaining those reasons. And lo and behold, the IRS has just announced new 'transitional' rules that give us at least a good part of what we needed. Without the discussions on many boards, the appeals might not have been as effective. PS I do not even HAVE a yahoo website.

No, actually, it's only the actual cost you have in the lawn mower that you can deduct, not it's FMV. The difference is your profit, which you can only deduct if you first report it as profit and pay taxes on it. In Eric's case, he is putting his time and knowledge into his 'product', but he can not deduct it because he has no 'cost' in it. He can, however, feel real good about doing such a fine thing for them. It's just like the farmer who raised a calf until it was ready to go to the sale barn, worth say $500, and the day before he's going to take it to the sale, the calf dies. He has no 'loss' to write off, because he has deducted all his costs as he went, feed, vet, supplies, depreciation on the cow and bull, etc. He merely has a lack of income, which, had he gotten it he would have had taxes owed on it.

Well, admittedly, anything we are told 'second-hand' is always suspect. But since this was not the typical 'my buddy did such-and-such...' but a daughter, I was giving it just a bit more reliability that, in fact, something was done on the daughter's return that was not correct treatment. It could, of course, be that the information from the daughter was misunderstood, or some other significant factor was left out, etc. But odds are high, in this particular example, as given, that doing anything other than treating it as ordinary business income would be 'bad advice'.

The only thing 'going on' is that nonprofessionals are giving out bad advice, and your clients are just hoping that you will follow along. Hang in there, you are right, and they are wrong. Unless they are willing to value your professional knowledge higher than that of these nonprofessionals, you are better off without them as clients. Now, I'm not suggesting, as some like to do, that you just 'fire them' out of hand. I'm suggesting that you try educating them to why they can not go down that road. But, if they refuse your advice once you have explained it carefully, then your best bet is to tell them that you are not willing to pay penalties for preparing a fraudulent return. If that does not get through to them, you have not lost anything worth keeping.

I sent you a message. KC

I think you have to consider two things here. One, while he may not want to bring the lawyer into the actual discussions with the University at this point, that does not stop him from getting advice from him on how to ask, and what to ask for, and how to insist that it be reported. For example, as Jainen pointed out, at least part of the transportation can be paid as a 'subsidy' that does not get reported to him at all. Or the University could simply PROVIDE the transportation to him, again as a non-taxable fringe because it would be for their benefit. The University could even buy the new house, remodel it to meet his needs, then 'exchange' that new house for his old house. Let the lawyers deal with how to make this non-taxable to him. Just make sure that you get to review the deal for tax issues, since some great lawyers are totally ignorant about tax law. Second, he should NOT be getting a 1099, either way. If they pay him extra for transportation, above the allowed 'subsidy', that should be on his W-2 as reimbursement of expenses, and then there is no issue of SE tax raised. At worst, he has some extra taxable income, but getting a 1099 will just cause him problems for no reason. Treating it the same way an employer treats the personal portion of use of a company car is much cleaner and does not raise compensation issues.

Charles Krauthammer is always worth reading. He's one of the smartest and most knowledgeable people writing today. That combination of traits is not a 'given'. It is a true shame that his medical condition means it's unlikely that he will be with us as long as we could hope. And I do like his 'dry humor'. It is ironic, I think, that he got into the area of political commentary through his Democratic connections, and is today such a respected conservative voice. In 1978 Krauthammer quit his medical practice to direct the planning in psychiatric research for the Jimmy Carter administration, and began contributing to the magazine The New Republic. During the presidential campaign of 1980, Krauthammer served as a speech writer to VP Walter Mondale. I must admit that I see him as a classic example of how maturity turns any thinking person toward conservatism. In 2006 the Financial Times named Krauthammer as America's most influential commentator, saying he "has influenced US foreign policy for more than two decades [and] writes with wit and occasional venom."

Well, I don't see that as you do, because I don't see a problem with someone getting the EIC while he/she starts a business. I don't think that everyone who gets EIC has low job skills, I see clients with good skills who are trying to build up their own business, often after being laid off a job, or having finally decided to take the plunge and create something that will give them more than just a pay-check that can stop at any time. I don't mind them getting the help, as long as the business is legit, because over time, they will pay much more if they succeed. They deserve the chance as much as the high school dropout who makes minimum wage because they did not bother to learn good grammar, or spelling, or even simple math, and can not even make change without help.

I agree, Atticus. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to assume about me, my husband and I worked our way through college, at the University of Mississippi, both working 40 hours a week while taking a full load in college at the same time. And we had three kids at the time. It was hard, and we did borrow as much as possible in student loans, and ate a lot of rice and beans, but we did it. We did not have it easy, but unlike LBB thinks, we are living proof that being poor does NOT mean you are stuck in that 'class'. One reason I got an accounting degree was that was what my husband wanted to take, and we could not afford to buy books for two different majors, so we both majored in Accounting, and he took MWF classes and I took T-Th and night classes, and we traded off baby-sitting and job hours. Believe me, when I was teaching, I had little sympathy for those who complained of being overworked taking 12 or 15 hours per semester, because I took 18 hours every semester except the one when I took 21. And finished my MBA in two semesters and one summer. But I had to, because we could not afford to stretch it out more than we had to. And it was worth it. My grade point was high enough to get into the Accounting Honorary Fraternity Beta Alpha Psi, and also Phi Gamma Nu. I am living proof that if you want something enough to really work for it, you can do almost anything. Teachers who recognized that I wanted to learn and was willing to work hard to achieve helped me by hiring me, for example, for their work-study jobs. We could not afford a car, although we did have an ancient delivery van that we used to go shopping for groceries, and it only caught fire about once a month or so. We always carried a jug of water just in case, and taught the kids to jump out and get away from the van when it did that!

I did hear a number of mentions of it on Fox News channel, and on the Glenn Beck show on CNN. One even had the Reagan speech from the 1994 D-Day ceremony. But that was the only place I heard it.

At last, a real answer with some real ideas. Good ones, even. Thank you, Jainen. I doubt if the ideas Hillary will put forward are the ones you mentioned, but I certainly hope they are. While I suspect her 'simplify' means reduce limits on eligibility, not tighten it like your first idea would, yours is a good idea. However, I believe the argument made when they removed that test was that just because one ex-spouse was rich did not mean that the other one got any benefit from that fact. I really like the idea of making at least part of the EIC only available through the advanced EIC in their paycheck. I know that there are sometimes problems with people getting too much that way, and then having to repay, but there are ways to take care of that. And you are right, getting it tied to the wages would help make the mental link between working and getting it. But then, what about the ones who get it for Sch C income? It's still a good idea, tho, for the W2 workers, at least.

Please let us know how it goes, as you get more used to it. This sort of feedback from the real 'front lines' is more valuable than anything else, when it comes to making such decisions.

Apparently their first 'contest' offer did not get enough responses, since originally they made it for May 31st deadline. I've decided to renew, after looking at the other options, so I will take advantage of this offer. As Marilyn says, the discount may not be a lot, but it's still enough to be a good deal, IMHO.

No, LBB, I'm not saying that people who work full time should live in poverty. But neither am I saying that they should never live in poverty, either. The fact is that some people, as you know, simply are not capable of working well enough to be worth enough money to get out of poverty. That is simply a fact, and IF it is not their fault, there are lots of ways that our government helps them make up the difference. I fully approve of that sort of help, where the worker is doing as well as he can. If they are not worth a decent wage because they dropped out of school, and because they have such low skills and low work ethic that they are not able to keep a job, then I don't think that means we have to just work harder so that we can provide them what they are not willing to work for themselves. The fact is that 'minimum wage' workers are almost all either beginners or they are people who do not stay on any job very long, or are such poor workers that they are not contributing enough to earn more than the minimum. Or they have a drug problem, serious attitude problem, etc. I do object to the idea that anyone who is capable of working but just does not want to, has an automatic right to the wages of those who do work hard. And the truth is, as you know if you have tried to hire a worker lately, hardly anyone makes the minimum wage, and if they do it is only for a short time until they get a raise. I live in a rural area of a low-wage state, and the STARTING wage at fast food places is $7 here. And any job that requires any sort of skills or education starts around $10 an hour, or more. That plus the fact that it is hard to even find anyone worth hiring that does not already have a job makes it hard for me to believe that there are lots of 'hard working, honest workers' who can not find a job making more than minimum wage. It just goes against what I see in real life, LBB. As for the education issue, if a student here in AR works hard in high school, even in this poor state there are multiple sources of money for them to go to college. They do not have to be rich to get a college degree, LBB. they just have to be willing to work hard at school. I doubt if that is less true in other states. It will not be a Premium School, perhaps, but the opportunities are still available. I've taught at the University here, and believe me, the most frustrating thing for me as a teacher was how poorly prepared many of the students were. They had frittered away their high school years taking the easiest classes they could get, doing the least they could do to get by, and then expecting the college level courses to stop and teach them the basic things they should have come into college already knowing. When faced with higher expectations, many of them just dropped out, rather than face the challenge and start actually studying and doing their homework! I suspect those kids then treated their employers the same way, trying to do the bare minimum at work, while complaining about the low pay. I say that because I've hired some of them, and been frustrated by their attitude that they have earned their pay if they just show up for work, at all. Heaven forbid that I should also expect that they turn off their cell phone and give me a full day's work, or that I should expect that they actually work their brain enough to file the folders in ALPHABETICAL ORDER! Or that they dress appropriately for an office, not a water park. And believe me, they don't even want the job in the first place, unless we start them at $7 an hour, with a raise after one month. Now, one last thing. You complain that this site is a "love fest for the right wing". That is not the case, LBB. You are just as welcome to post your thoughts here as is any 'right wing nut' like me. I don't object to you posting your opinions, as long as you allow me and the other nuts the right to reply politely to your posts. So if you think it's leaning too much to the right, you are free to post to the left. Just label it "Political" if it's not about taxes [please note that this one started out about a tax issue, which has been ignored mostly], and keep it polite, and I will support your right to do so completely. We do not have to always agree, in order to benefit from this board. A little friendly debate can enliven all of us. I don't have to agree with you all the time, in order to respect you, and it goes both ways.

Well, hopefully Daisy will come back and tell us what sort of 'entity' his business is. That makes a lot of difference, because if it is a corp, there should not have been a 1099 in the first place, but if it was an LLC or a partnership, then it needs to be reported on the entity return, even if it is then zeroed out and reported on his return. I'd also want to know 'why' the income should not belong to the entity, because the reason he gives will often determine my answer. Without knowing both these things, I could not answer the question.

Here's a post from another board about another good article. There's a good article and software evaluation in the June/July "NSA Technology Advisor" that makes a distinction between Document Management Systems and Document Storage Systems. The article focuses on Document Management Systems. Another article will follow on Document Storage Systems. In general Document Management Systems are more involved. Different providers' software have different capabilities and prices, and can do such things as sharing data across different platforms, indexing, website portals, and a variety of other things that help to eliminate duplicate data entry and sharing and receiving information with/from clients. John Stevens, EA Stevens Tax and Accounting, Inc., dba Equi-Tax 1870 - 50th St. E., Suite 8 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 651-773-5000 FAX 651-457-4529 [email protected] www.equitax.net