kcjenkins

I have done that, but have to warn you, it's not only messy [crumbs, spills.....] it also does not matter to the best clients, but does attract the bottom feeders. I stopped it after one client that learned of it when he brought in his paperwork brought all 9 off his kids when he came back, announcing to them loudly as he came in, "only one Coke each, kids". They then each got a coke out of the drink box, and set down and ate two full boxes of cookies, all we had, Then left the office with paper, cans, and spills everywhere.

I agree, no one should be attacked or belittled for asking a reasonable question. Just because someone chooses a different track does not make their choice either better or worse than someone else's track. Just as some of us decide to specialize in one or just a few types of clients, be that green card clients, ministry, OTR truckers, etc. While many take a broad range. NEITHER choice is wrong.

Nothing on the IRS website.

BEST ADVICE: Since her income has been entered into the court records and there is a record of the income claimed on the return, his attorney might be able to go back to court and have the judge compel her to sign an amended return. Otherwise, let sleeping dogs lie.

And don't forget, with a tablet you can watch things like this, anywhere.

Yes, I've done that too. That's why BookBub is so smart giving away free copies of the first in a series, so often.

This pair is so happy together you just know they are going to be best buddies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD-C0HPD0Vc

Good article. When I got ready to leave for college, in 1961, my father gave me a beautiful slide rule as my special gift. The leather case had a belt-loop so I could keep it at my side all the time. and I loved it. I could do simple calculations faster than an electronic calculator or today's calculator apps. And, of course, those did not exist then.

John and SFA both make great points. We really don't know enough to evaluate whether that yr-end distribution is 'reasonable', i.e. defendable. But either way, taking a final paycheck at year-end with w/h is always an easy way to avoid overpaying during the year, yet avoiding the estimated tax issues.

I used to do all those, myself. Now, I use my Nook for almost all my reading, for 2 reasons. 1] My eyes are not what they used to be, so being able to enlarge the fonts is a huge advantage to me. 2] I'm a VERY fast reader, and always carried a book in my purse, but often used to be frustrated when I finished it while out somewhere. I've left many a paperback behind for someone to discover, but the problem is 'what to read now?' With my nook, I have always got the next book or magazine right there. Plus, the subscriptions are cheaper, for the nook version! I have over 800 books, and 25 apps, so I'm never just sitting wishing I had something to read.

Judy, my mixed feelings are pretty much the same as yours. Although I don't worry about 'Big Pharma' getting the tax benefit, or "how many drugs that do work were developed under this program that are now not being manufactured because big pharma decided that particular drug did not benefit enough people or was not profitable." Because, while no doubt that happens sometimes, that which is discovered or invented is never un-invented. And it will end up, if it is really effective, being brought to the market by some company, once the patent runs out. I'm more worried about "For smaller pharmaceutical companies, especially for a handful of those that specialize in developing medicines for rare diseases, abolishment of the orphan drug tax credit could result in complete termination of their drug development programs." The very fact that, thanks to the credit, these companies EXIST, is reason enough to keep it, IMHO. It's not, as the article points out, an important issue to 'Big Pharma' , but it is critical to the small specially companies. And most of the results in this area are coming from those. I guess I've gotten most of my 'mixed feelings' clarified while thinking through your answer Judy, so I thank you for that. It's what I was hoping for by posting the thread. Hopefully some more members will add their thoughts, too.

I agree with Jack on this part. No two Sch C's are the same, ditto Corps and Partnerships and LLC's. The time is going to depend mostly on how complete and how well organized the records the client provides are, plus # of partners/members, etc. Even 1040's can vary widely. Say four returns, all 1040's, and say 3 W-2s each. But Taxpayer A has education credits, interest income, and a 2106. Taxpayer B has a Sch B, a Sch D and a retirement plan rollover and RMD calculation. Taxpayer C has Sch A, with 6 non-cash contributions, significant medical expenses, and they refi-ed their home mortgage. Taxpayer D has nothing but those W-2s and a little UI. Are you going to pay the preparers the same for each of those? Or expect each to take about the same time?

This was moved [Judy? Eric?] but I moved it back for a reason. It's not a political piece, it gives arguments for both sides, it's from Accounting Today, and I'm really interested in hearing opinions from all here. I have mixed feelings about it myself so hope for thoughts from the group. Few read the Politics forum, which is fine, but I'm hoping for input from more on here. Please give your thoughts on the tax issues, and, as much as possible, leave the 'politics' out of it.

Adorable I dare you to try not to smile at this one!

Expiration of the research tax credit imperils the orphan drug credit, and the lives that depend on it. July 23, 2014 By Alexander Korniakov There are a great variety of medicines to treat the common cold. The scientific advancements in pharmaceutical development during the past several decades have been tremendous, resulting in the discovery of medicines to treat many medical conditions that previously were considered untreatable (many, but not all). There are still a great number of diseases, often very rare or uncommon, that affect many Americans, for which therapeutic treatments are yet to be discovered. Of course, no one wants to hear a devastating verdict from their physician that there is no therapeutic treatment for a particular medical condition you or your family member might have. Pharmaceutical companies, like companies in all other industries, are in the business of generating profits. Developing treatments for rare diseases and conditions can be as expensive as developing medicines to treat any other disease. The expenses incurred by pharmaceutical companies for drug design, preclinical and clinical testing of medicines for rare diseases may be difficult to recover if sales of a particular product are limited to a relatively small patient population. This situation has been recognized by governments of many industrialized economies, including the United States, the European Union and Japan, and led to a wide variety of government incentives for pharmaceutical companies to aid drug development initiatives for rare diseases and conditions. These incentives include sales and market exclusivity, accelerated drug approval processes, patent protection and certain specialized tax incentives. In 1983, President Reagan signed into law the Orphan Drug Act, which received bipartisan support in Congress. Among the various provisions of the Act was the orphan drug tax credit, a tax credit offered to pharmaceutical companies as a tax incentive to facilitate development of treatments for rare diseases and conditions. This tax credit is viewed as a very lucrative incentive. It is computed as 50 percent of the costs incurred by a pharmaceutical company to conduct clinical testing of drugs for rare diseases and conditions, including the costs of clinical testing conducted outside of the United States under certain circumstances. By far, the costs associated with clinical trials comprise the largest portion of the overall drug development costs for any pharmaceutical company. To qualify for the orphan drug tax credit, a drug candidate has to be designated as an orphan drug by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Since its enactment, over three decades the FDA has received applications for over 3,000 pharmaceutical products to treat various rare diseases and conditions, over 450 of which received orphan drug designations. In comparison, according to the FDA Office of Orphan Products Development, less than a handful of such drugs were developed in the United States during the decade immediately preceding the enactment of the Act. Recently, pharmaceutical companies developed therapeutic treatments for various rare diseases, including Adcetris for treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma, Kalydeco for cystic fibrosis, and Arzerra for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, among others. By this indication alone, there is little doubt that the orphan drug program has been a success, according to the FDA. Unfortunately, the orphan drug tax credit is at risk of being discontinued despite it being permanent in the Internal Revenue Code. The discussion draft of the Tax Reform Act of 2014, introduced by Representative Dave Camp, R-Mich., and released by the House Ways and Means Committee that he chairs, would repeal this provision of the Code in exchange for lowering tax rates and simplification of the overall tax system. Based on an analysis of the discussion draft by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the elimination of the orphan drug tax credit is anticipated to provide budgetary savings of $9.1 billion over the next decade. On June 5, 2014, Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, announced three hearings on the comprehensive tax reform, including modernizing U.S. corporate taxation. The purpose of these discussions is to simplify the U.S. tax code to promote long-term growth and ensure economic prosperity for the American people, according to the official release. Whether these discussions will result in favorable recommendations regarding the fate of the orphan drug tax credit has yet to be seen. Costs associated with developing and clinical testing of treatments for rare diseases and conditions are not a significant expense item for major pharmaceutical companies when viewed in comparison with similar costs for non-orphan drug indications. Hence, the expectation that these companies will be involved in supporting the orphan drug tax credit extensively is considered to be rather low given the uncertainty of whether the development and clinical testing expenses could be recovered even with the credit. There are many other challenges for pharmaceutical companies in the United States, including attempts to control pharmaceutical product pricing and increased scrutiny during the regulatory process of approval of medicines. Simply put, whether the orphan drug tax credit remains part of the Internal Revenue Code does not seem high on the list of priorities for major pharmaceutical companies. For smaller pharmaceutical companies, especially for a handful of those that specialize in developing medicines for rare diseases, abolishment of the orphan drug tax credit could result in complete termination of their drug development programs. These smaller pharmaceutical companies will either cease to exist or develop medicines for non-orphan drug indications instead. It is unknown if the small patient groups that have benefited from orphan drugs—much less society in general—will resist the abolition of the orphan drug tax credit. By definition, rare diseases affect a very limited portion of the population, in contrast to widespread cardiovascular diseases and various cancers. The orphan drug tax credit law relies on the research tax credit provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. In fact, the main difference between the two credits is how they are computed, not which research and development activities can qualify. Historically, the research tax credit has received bipartisan support in Congress and from many presidential administrations and was extended 14 times. Budgetary offsets have never been considered a priority as the research tax credit has been recognized as a measure that favors technological change and innovation in this country, including advancements in medical sciences, all of which increase the potential for greater tax revenue in the long run. The orphan drug tax credit has received less attention because of its permanent nature and its applicability to just one industry. Surprisingly, despite his support for the research and development tax incentives in the past, President Obama threatened to veto the research tax credit bill passed by the House, citing the necessity for a budgetary offset to the increased spending should the research tax credit become permanent. It is even more surprising, since President Obama voted in favor of extending the research tax credit in 2006 and 2008 without any budgetary offsets when he was a senator. The role of any government is to defend and promote the interests of all its citizens and to administer programs that are beneficial to all, including those who are underrepresented. It is hard to believe that the orphan drug tax credit law may be eliminated by legislators even if a suitable budgetary offset is nowhere to be found. Should the U.S. tax system compare lost revenue to lost hopes and lost lives? Dr. Alexander Korniakov, PhD, CPA, is the senior vice president of research credit and other tax incentives at Fortisure Consulting LP, a consulting firm located at 1900 South Norfolk Street in San Mateo, Calif. Dr. Korniakov holds a master’s degree in financial engineering and a doctorate degree in chemical engineering, both from the New York University Polytechnic School of Engineering. He is licensed as a Certified Public Accountant.

http://www.savvysugar.com/Homemade-Toilet-Bomb-Fizzies-31734698

Typical of them, they have a screw-up and everyone else has to pay the cost.

Often the business has been paying more to them as a IC than they would have paid an employee, basically passing on the difference just to avoid the paperwork hassle of payroll. So the workers may be shocked to discover the "pay cut" that comes now. But it only takes one 'fired' IC going for Unemployment to create a huge problem for the business, because the states all assume "employee" unless you can prove otherwise with a preponderance of the evidence. Both feds and states prefer they be employees because then they get their taxes faster and surer, with fewer deductions allowed.

It's been upheld in court. It's not 'fair' but it is the law, as passed by the state government, and we all know tax laws that are not 'fair'. Their 'estimated income' system is even worse, believe me! They may have just procastinated knowing that they would have a refund.

They wrote it to give the t/p no 'outs' at all. Iff they claim they sent the demand, that's it. Unless he can prove he was out of the country, or that they sent it to the wrong address, they are screwed. CA needs the money, don't you know? The fact that they had more withheld than they owed matters to the IRS, but not to CA. I do 'suspect' that he MIGHT have gotten the demand letter which spurred him to come to you and get the return done. But at this point it's irrelevant.