Catherine

I was gonna add a snarky comment about the new rule being "deplorable" but now am afraid it will get banned and the moderators will spank me... but it was *just* going to be for snark value, I promise!

Thank you! I was up teaching at Camp Constitution last week and we had our own fireworks and special presentations for the day. Great time!

Change "had to" to "were supposed to" and you have it. But they didn't, they screwed up, and because it was their screw-up, they will be even more recalcitrant than usual about fixing it.

And GOOD LUCK to you, Naveen! How unutterably nasty for you - and how unforgivably STUPID for the IRS to lien the wrong property.

If not, call the Taxpayer Advocate and have them place a 911 emergency help on your account.

So true. Somehow the errors just pop out in final form. Weird. So it's NOT just me, then? That's a relief!

And an AI also came up with these names for Guinea Pigs (for a shelter that rescues lots of piggies and so needs a lot of names): Splanky, Gooper, Spockers, Fufby, Snifkin, Hanger Dan, Princess Pow, Popchop, Fuzzable, Fleury White, Stargoon, Buzzberry, and After Pie. Plus more (and some hilarious blooper names, too). Gizmodo had the article, for those who want to read it and see piggie pictures.

Robot callers are not allowed to pretend to be human; if asked, they are allowed to laugh, or to ask if they *sound* like a robot - but not to say "no." Prevarication, not fraud. So if they won't say.... they've said.

Gremlins. That's what is going on.

OK, boys, remember to take your blood pressure meds...

So update your computers NOW if you have not done that in a while. Just double-checked my machine (all OK) and will check the home machine once I get back there.

I am shocked, *shocked*, to find gambling on the premises. Oh, wait, my winnings... https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/06/26/irs-private-debt-collectors-accused-of-pressuring-taxpayers-breaking-the-law/#428eb5252aeb For those who don't like to click links, here is the first paragraph-and-a-bit from Forbes: A new law which went into effect this year directs the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to hand over some unpaid tax bills to private agencies for collections. The law was pushed through despite the failures of past privatization efforts and despite concerns about what privatization efforts might mean for taxpayers (including those recently expressed by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George and National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson). It appears those concerns were not unfounded.

If it were my client, I would send the "missing" forms, the e-file-forms-sent listing from the computer with the "missing" forms highlighted, the e-file submission ID/ack, and would also make sure that if there was a 1040 requested, that the client SIGN it. I had a request for a 1040 for someone *just* as backup - forget the details - and the idiots rejected the backup info because it wasn't signed. Took another letter to dope-slap them into admitting the signature wasn't actually needed. I'm seeing more inexcusably incompetent foul-ups with the IRS and have actively been trying to give them no excuse not to do things MY way (because that's the right way, of course - no pride here, nope, uh-uh, no sirree... lol).

I have found the same thing time and time again. But I'm not sure it's fear that keeps them from filing. I've seen it take a couple of years to recover from the catastrophe, at which point they are so far behind they don't know where to start, and it's too overwhelming - so they never start, and the problem escalates. Case in point, an older man who had a heart attack or stroke (I don't remember, if I ever even knew; serious health issue). In the hospital for a long time, in rehab even longer, and a couple of years before he got his strength and energy back. Took one look at the stack somewhere before he was really well, and ignored it as too much to handle after that. His kids found out years later and they brought everything to me (with dad's permission). But it wasn't fear; it was just Sisyphus, facing another morning with that rock, and turning away.

At this point, I'm suspicious of the emails I get telling me that my e-services password is close to expiring.... at least, until I check my own, dated, records. (And the official emails do NOT include a click-link to change that pw; you have to go there yourself.)

Robin Williams once said (actually, he probably said it many times, but only once in the show I saw) that baby poo is one-half toxic waste and one-half velcro.

And that "somebody" is those of us who do pay.

Oh, now wouldn't *that* be sweet. Just think: calling and be assured of talking to someone with a clue!

That is ALWAYS the bugaboo. I have never, ever, had a balance sheet balance out properly without (sometimes a LOT) of massaging beyond the "normal" book-to-tax differences and timing differences. OTOH, it has also led me to unearth some serious errors in what my clients have reported to me, that in a Sch C would never have been noticed. It usually ends up revolving around personal loans made to the company, to get them through a cash-flow hump (or vice-versa), that is later forgotten about.

I have not used Canopy, @Abby Normal but I do have - and use - and love - THS (TaxHelpSoftware) that is similar. It has fewer functions, for significantly less money. *Beautiful* reports. But I have not tried it today.

Ummm.... being, in MA, let's just say "no" - but it does look good from *outside* I'll give you that. Internally it has been a disaster in many and varied ways - so yes it certainly was a prototype for the aca in that sense! I would be much more in favor of regulation (federal or state) if it actually MEANT anything. By which I specifically mean that they monitored the quality of the returns submitted, and clamped down hard and fast on any and every one whose returns are fraudulent or who is even just clueless. AND if they also had a huge PR campaign to educate taxpayers on what to avoid (not to look for). Such as "anyone who won't sign your returns - avoid" or " anyone who claims they can get you a better refund than X - avoid" etc. We've seen posts here (most recently from RitaB) where we KNOW who in our own areas are either incompetent or playing fast-and-loose (or both) and there's no point in reporting them because NOTHING will happen to them. THAT is the part that has to change for ANY regulatory scheme to be anything but a money-maker for government - frequently supported by our professional societies since they all make money selling memberships and CPE classes.

NATP has self-study classes available; check them out. They have 8-cpe-hour classes on C corps and S corps (plus partnerships). They are basic level classes geared exactly to your situation: sole-prop clients "moving up" in complexity of business structure. They may also have webinars and guided classes; I always prefer self-study. Take a look at their offerings here: https://www.natptax.com/EventsAndEducation/Pages/course-list-self-study.aspx

I have used the Chrome pdf printer to save to pdf, then print to paper from that if I want/need. I have also used my pdf "printer" installed on my machine. I admit readily that the e-services "print" function does not work very well at all; you are not the only one to have a problem with them! It has never worked for me; I always use CTRL-P on my browser and go from there.

I agree with Tom in this one. Get a POA that covers all the years - and make sure it includes provisions to discuss civil penalties - and call. May take more than one call, if you get a clueless newbie or a real hard-nose on your first try. Find out the situation, get a list of exactly what they want, transcripts, and go from there. And get paid up-front for this one; I never take a back-taxes case without payment up front. I use up the payment and there's more to do - more money, and work ceases until paid (and the check clears).

Always great if it can be done. If it wasn't done at the time, "the time" was several years ago, and the property was not sold, then it gets very messy and alternative measures may be needed. And some clients won't spring for it as a separate item; little knowing they spend nearly that much to *us* for the research we have to do to come up with something reasonable that we can defend using.