Jump to content
ATX Community


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.grant-financial.com & www.constitutiondecoded.com
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • State
  • Gender
  • Interests
    competitive target shooting, fiddle playing (Scottish style), dancing, gardening, reading

Recent Profile Visitors

17,530 profile views
  1. I keep a spreadsheet, with pages by due dates. Any return competed (copy given, e-filed, accepted) gets color coded; other colors tell me stages of prep. Once glance at the colors give me an instant general-status report.
  2. I agree completely with Bulldog Tom and Corduroy Frog. The IRS, given this power, will not prosecute the well-known fraudsters - because they already have that authority, they already have the necessary information, and they already know (or could easily retrieve from their own databases) who those persons/companies ARE. They have not. They will not - except for a few really egregious and public, but relatively small-potato, cases, to remind people that they can, as well as to make the publilc think they actually give a rip. This power, if given, will be used to intimidate those who disagree with IRS positions. I would expect for it first to be used against the most-successful Representation groups of those who are not nationally or regionally known. The ones who stop the service from wrongfully destroying people's financial lives over taxes assessed but not actually owed. They will leave the less-successful groups to flop and flail - and fail - at protecting taxpayers. And any tax preparer who protests an audit finding will do so at risk of their professional future. Unless you want to show me, in the text of the bill itself, where preparers are protected against claims made by any IRS employee or internal group with whom they have had recent cases heard. Disagree with me all you want. But ask yourself, first, when the last time was that you personally saw a *taxpayer* (not a tax pro) treated with respect (and not as a suspect) by the IRS, and how fast they will turn that same level of scorn and suspicion on you if they are given this power.
  3. I'm a member. Price is good, research is also good (the one free question I really like - we get one doozy every year). Unlike many places, their CPE has an "Intermediate" level as well as basic and advanced. Those prices are also reasonable. Some years ago, I went to their summer conference in Philadelphia, and it was the best conference I'd ever gone to. There is also (I forget what they call it) a cut-rate price to include y our co-workers or assistant as a member. Certainly far more bang for your buck than NAEA. I am thinking very hard of NOT renewing that one this year; far more money and I stopped reading their magazine several years back. The freebie benefit of Verifyle is about 1/3 the cost of the NAEA membership, so it's cheaper to pay for that than to get it free.
  4. Our prayers are with you that you all come through Ida with no major problems!
  5. I use Mercer and am happy with policy and price.
  6. Had something like this happen to a client some years ago. We got interest waived because he held (and never cashed) the check - knowing the IRS would want the $$ back. Our stance that he never cashed the check meant he never made use of the funds and so there was no call for interest. But that only has a chance of working if you hold the check.
  7. They may refuse to apply 2019 funds to 2020 and refund those. There's a time limit, and I have no idea if they are paying attention to that (or not) to the regular cut-off times when the backlog is on them.
  8. Of course He does! Have you ever looked at a platypus?
  9. We have plenty of parents who pay the kid's tax from their accounts. As long as the account numbers are valid, the IRS doesn't give a fat hoot. They'll take the funds and apply them to the return. Drake has a page for the client to sign, affirming the routing and account numbers are correct. Might not be a bad idea to use something like that, as proof you were authorized to use Mom's account for kid's tax.
  10. Yes; don't forget that! Plus there is usually a fee (sometimes hefty) for dissolution.
  11. Great starter set of advice for your niece, Tom!
  12. Catherine


    They are both WAY off base and outside of procedure, for all the reasons stated (and probably more). Appeal it, and quote the IRM at them. Sometimes it seems they reject perfectly good OICs just to say the case is closed - as in, off their own personal list of open cases. Appeals generally has more of a clue as well as better authority to over-rule idiot decisions of lower-grade drones. Document everything and make sure you never miss a deadline.
  13. Congratulations, @BulldogTom - may you be VERY happy in the new digs - and may the internet be lightning-fast!
  14. I had a client get about their THIRD letter demanding payment of tax NOT owed - they filed about a week before the UI exclusion. They've actually paid the small amount of tax that was really due, but keep getting auto-letters demanding a lot more, that is NOT owed, and every time they get a new letter they call me in a panic. And I tell them, *again*, that the letters are being sent out by computer and that they don't owe $2K. I am SO sick of this. And there is nothing anyone can do.
  15. The IRS' position will be that THEY should have been paid FIRST, and it that left insufficient funds for other creditors, too bad/so sad with a side dose of tough noogies. They're gonna have to pony up, and they should never have paid off the other creditors first. They could have gotten other creditors to take a percentage of what was owed - happens all the time when there are insufficient funds in an estate for full payment - but they'll never get money back.
  • Create New...