Catherine

They cannot "vote to demand the Senate pass a budget" -- the House has NO power over what the Senate does or does not do. This statement is nonsense, proving only a lack of understanding of the Constitution on your part. Please look up the same resources linked for Taxed. I agree the system is broken in many ways. A return to the Constitution would be a very good place to start fixing those broken areas. Study the document and see for yourself how powerful and how pertinent it is!

You are very welcome. There are plenty who "fall by the wayside" when gov't is in charge. Please also note I did say there was room for _state_ action -- just not federal; the Constitution specifically states that ALL powers not authorized are reserved to the states and the people (10th Amendment). A dear friend applied for assistance years ago when she was near-destitute. The government social worker assigned to "help" her not only did NOT help -- but threatened to have another agency take her children away from her! She got help from a church group, _not_ the government. She was too scared to try to go back to them! Her crime? Being so poor that she had the heat turned off in most rooms of her house (over 100 years old, no insulation, no central heat - it was room by room heaters, so she only had heat on in rooms as they were being used). The social worker said the next time she came back it had better be warm in all rooms OR she would have child services remove the children. No ifs, and, buts, or explanations. (My friend's dad worked for the State Dept; she grew up all over the world and knew very well what a luxury central heat is - neither she nor her kids had any problem with turning heat on and off as they used rooms.) So government "help" is not without its own set of serious problems! The more you distrust politicians (which can hardly be too much, in my view), the LESS power they must have over our daily lives. Please look at some of the info I linked earlier; you may find it very interesting at the least!

It depends on when you submit and how much needs processing. If you submit early in the day (or late at night), it seems to be quicker (fewer cases on the servers). Big cases (hundreds of trades rather than a couple dozen) take longer. A couple hours is the usual. In the thick of the season, a job submitted early afternoon might take as much as twelve hours (functionally, the next morning). I have my assistant submit the files when they are scanned (when the papers first come in to my office), so the indexed pdf and the trades spreadsheet is ready for me when I get to that return. I don't recall offhand about the tokens, as I buy whatever I used last year.... I think one token processes 10 trades. But that wouldn't be worth it! YES, it catches wash sales. How it shows them is determined by how the original 1099-B shows them. Sometimes it is a second line with just the wash adjustment and everything else blank; sometimes it is an adjustment in a separate column of the same line. It also catches puts correctly (didn't have any calls this year so can't tell you about those).

Have added numbers to your comments, rather than try to intersperse. 1. THIS one, as this is still the one and ONLY country ever founded on the principle that political power is sovereign IN THE PEOPLE. WE retain power, WE have rights (given to us by our Creator, if you follow the Declaration's principles, and given to us on the basis of our humanity according to Ayn Rand's expositions, if you are an atheist -- those rights are NOT dependent on any government or government document, and NO government act or document can remove them), WE grant the government limited privileges so that it has power to act in specific, limited areas where we have charged it to act. Please see excellent explanation of the CRUCIAL difference between rights and privileges here: http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf John Adams also states that the moment the idea is admitted into society that private property is not as sacred as the laws of God, that anarchy and tyranny commence. However we have strayed _very_ far from our founding principles in the last 100+ years, under both R's and D's. NEITHER party wants us to understand the Constitution or our Founding Principles because it is not in _their_ interests that we do so! I have spent most of the last five years and more studying and researching and the more I study and learn, the more adamant I get that we MUST return to a general understanding of the Constitution. When Alexis de Toqueville traveled this country in the 1800's he reported _common_ instances of the general public discussing the ramifications and Constitutional principles behind the actions taken at the federal level. There is a wonderful TRUE story you can find online about Davey Crockett getting lessoned in the Constitution by a constituent farmer. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html 2. Yes. It is called "savings." There is NO Constitutional authorization for the federal government to be involved in any way, shape, or form -- and this is a crucial piece of information most people no longer understand. The federal government's purpose and authorized areas of activity are ONLY in areas where a unified front of ALL the states is required -- national defense, interactions with other countries, disputes between states (for example, RI could not broker a dispute between NY and VA; a non-state party is required). See Article 1, Section 8, the latter half of Section 9, and Section 10. Also see Article 2, Sections 2 & 3. There may be room for STATE action here -- that depends on the Constitutions of the states themselves. However, I would very strongly object to the state being the custodian of MY retirement funds (even if they can determine I must set aside x% for myself). Politicians simply cannot keep their hands off of money, and they spend it. If that money is MINE, from MY work, then it should be set aside for ME. NOT put into the general fund, spend willy-nilly, and all I really have is an IOU that is worth heaven only knows what. The passage of the Social Security Act was carefully presented NOT as an insurance or annuity program, to pass constitutional muster at that time (even with FDR's threats to pack the court with those who would do his bidding, he was careful here). However, it is structured to work as an insurance/annuity plan, and while there are people who do not get out of it what they put in there are far more who get out more than they put in. It is also fundamentally flawed actuarily (is that a word?). Age 65 was picked as retirement age -- in a year when average lifespan was late 50's/early 60's -- and no provision for adjustment was made. That same plan, presented today, would set retirement age at about age 80 (with average lifespan now 82 - 84, depending on gender). It was never designed to be a multi-decade, sole support mechanism for the elderly! It will either collapse catastrophically -- or we can restructure it now and phase it out gradually. I know very well that it means my generation will spend a lifetime paying in while never getting anything back. That is the price for our society having bought a pig-in-a-poke decades ago. I would love to learn more about how Galveston County withdrew from the SS program, structured their own in-county retirement system, and made it fully functional and fully funded. We have 50 states and hundreds of counties and thousands of towns -- we can experiment with dozens of options and see what works best! Why stick with a known losing system?!?! 3. Personal savings -- family -- church/civic group assistance -- state jurisdiction (and any state payments should be required to be picked up in person; nothing like standing in those long lines for your check every other week to make one eager to find work, as I found out after my first lay-off). Local groups (civic or religious) stand a far better chance of being efficient in getting money to those who need it -- just like with charitable organizations. If a charity is inefficient, people stop donating and give money to a cause that IS efficient -- and the inefficient one goes under. I know a woman who worked at a food pantry and learned about folks who agonized over feeding their pets -- so SHE started a pet food pantry! She saw a need, and addressed it, and was able to do so ONLY because she didn't have a huge bureaucracy to fight with. 4. Y'know, there _used_ to be charity hospitals. They're pretty much gone, thanks to over-regulation by the feds. Get rid of that over-regulation, and they'll come back. And people are generous! One of my husband's oldest friends was diagnosed a number of years ago with Stage 4 kidney cancer. In the UK, Canada, or Europe (socialized medicine) they would have told him to go home and put his papers in order. Here, he got into a research study for an experimental treatment. $80,000 PER treatment, treatments twice a week for eight weeks; the series run twice. Ouch. Insurance didn't cover it. His family held fund-raising events. His company did as well. They also used quite a bit of savings. He is now an international expert on patient empowerment and advocacy. See his story at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_deBronkart and http://epatientdave.com/ or read his books. 5. No!! They simply would not have a federal teat to latch on to. There would be state, community, church, family, and civic safety nets. The closer a group is to the source of a problem, the BETTER chance they have at properly and efficiently addressing _actual_ needs and _actual_ causes. 6. There are some libertarians who go overboard to anarchy (and I personally do NOT know if Stossel is one of them; I have not read his writings in any depth or breadth). Anarchy is not stable; it is always a prelude to tyranny and dictatorship. http://youtu.be/ROnbwCf37EA Badnarik shows clearly that (1) all rights are, in essence, property rights (starting with your first-ever piece of property, your own body); (2) every right implies a concommittant responsibility, and (3) the ONLY limitations on your rights is the equal rights of others. (This is also known as "your rights stop where my nose starts.") Furthermore, the only way reliably to defend the rights of minority groups, is staunchly to defend the rights of each individual, everywhere, without fail, without lapse, without exception. That said, what one person does or does not do (chooses or chooses not; make up your own list) is an area for the individual to control. Minors under the control of their parents (with church or state intervention for abusive situations, etc.). You may choose not to wear a helmet when riding your motorcycle -- whereupon your insurer may choose to state in the policy that you are therefore NOT covered for head injury in an accident (at which time you had best be independently rich, or hope those charity hospitals are back). YOUR lack of self-concern does not obligate me to help pay for your care!! (I may choose to do so out of compassion -- but I am not obligated.) Yes, this all pre-supposes a moral society. While the usual path for morals is religion, Ayn Rand has shown clearly that there is a more rigorous intellectual path to morality. Do not assume I am demanding a particular brand of faith to make this work. John Adams did say our Constitution was written for a religious and moral people, and that it was unsuited for any other society. Most people are moral, and good. Most politicians are neither; why should they then have so much power over our lives? 7. Absolutely true -- therefore we need to LIMIT their power by taking back the reins of control we have ceded. They do NOT have our best interests at heart; they have their own interests, closely aligned with the interests of international corporations, large unions, financial groups, and many others - which are antithetical to ours. The power they wield is NOT what was intended; NOT what was designed by the Framers, NOT what this country was set up to provide as a framework for our lives. Every federal over-reach into our lives (and outside of the very few areas it was meant to preside over), no matter what "good" it was designed to achieve, ultimately has the exact OPPOSITE effect. Therefore if we want to achieve good ends for our society, we must get the federal government OUT of those areas! Enough; I've been at this for over an hour and I need my lunch and a strong cup of tea to help shake this headache I've been fighting all morning. Hope this was clear, and there is SO much information at the sources I linked above, plus constitutiondecoded.com and publiushuldah.wordpress.com

It also shows what being in DC does to people over the years. Rangel originally ran for Congress on a very strong anti-corruption, anti-tax-evasion campaign against (if memory serves) Adam Clayton Powell.

Like throwing billions of dollars at social welfare programs, unConstitutionally, over the course of decades, to have the same percentage of people in poverty as when they started -- with the additional burden of the total destruction of the family structure and the solid, respectable, hard-working community social structure in poor areas? You mean that kind of insanity? Speaking as one who was raised Democrat/liberal, just open your eyes and LOOK at what the "liberal" policies have done in the past decades. A more complete and thorough destruction of an entire section of our nation can hardly be imagined, all in the name of "helping" people. It's there, plain as day, but you must be willing to see what is _really_ there and not what you _want_ to see. Far too many people are not willing to open their eyes. I am a Constitutional Libertarian in large part because of the incredible damage that has been done (and continues to be done) to the poor and needy, for political gain.

I still have the 12.15 update download -- so if you have the original disk, I can send you the 12.15 update (also think I still have 12.10 and 12.13, maybe others). Sometimes it pays to not get around to clearing out the "download" folder.

Folks who have experienced REAL tyranny -- have you spoken with any of these folks? I have -- defectors from the USSR, refugees from Czechoslovakia from behind the Iron Curtain, and more. The all have ONE thing to say, and it is, "Will you people open your eyes and STOP this?!?! I did not risk my life to escape the Communists to live under their thumb here!" Only in much greater detail and in much stronger terms.

All of the above?

https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/2013/05/15/broadening-irs-victims-include-pro-life-advocates-as-congress-investigates/ The latest bit of the dam to give way... FWIW -- I have been called a "conservative" here -- but that is NOT the correct descriptive. Constitutional Libertarian (or Classic Liberal) is the correct term. And I have criticized, very strongly, most every president we have had for the last hundred years and more; do not attempt to complain about how I "hate Obama, probably because he's black." I could not care less about the man himself, the color of his skin, or anything else about him. I deeply despise any attempt to turn this land of freedom and liberty into yet another poverty-stricken enclave of collectivist misery. That work has been going on since the early 1900's (READ the Ten Planks of the Communist Party and see how many have been implemented here!!!), and Khrushchev's "boast" in the early 60's was, so far as I can see, a flat-out statement of fact. My focus is always on the Constitution -- and I state flat-out that most of the folks here who complain about the government "not doing enough" do not (1) realize that the federal government was set up that way ON PURPOSE, (2) do not know what any of the very excellent reasons for those limitations were, and (3) how the poor, the elderly, and the ill would ultimately (and in short order!) be significantly BETTER off when we return to the Constitution and get the federal government OUT of areas it does not belong. The Constitution was instituted to protect our rights. Rights are based on property (starting with the first property you ever own, your body, the day you are born). Therefore, by inevitable concatenation, the Constitution protects our property. You cannot protect your property by instituting practices from a system that denies private ownership of property. John Adams said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, anarchy and tyranny commence." He was right. We set up a federal government to protect liberty -- dangerous, exhilarating, prosperity-producing liberty. EVERYTHING else was left to the states, and to the people. Every "why don't they" question should properly be "why don't I." See how much more power to actually HELP we would have if the federal government did not unConstitutionally hinder our every effort -- by studying the actual document and the reasons behind the choices that were made. Read the reservations the people and the states had -- ALL based on fears of the federal government usurping their areas of jurisdiction! Those fears were well-founded. (See the Anti-Federalist Papers; some hyperbole but they were right. Also the first case of "political spin" as the "anti-federalists" were actually strong supporters of federalism; it was the "federalists" who wanted a stronger central government, which is NOT federalism!) Start with Michael Badnarik's "Good To Be King" available only at his web site, constitutionpreservation.org, or the writings of attorney Publius Huldah at her blog, publiushuldah.wordpress.com, or see some of the articles on the Constitution linked through the web site constitutiondecoded.com on the page "links to articles."

I have used Gruntworx with ATX for several years now. I love the indexed PDF I get -- I can go through all the documents in order. The scan for Sch D info has to be at a certain level of quality (300 dpi?) for them to really get the right numbers. I do check every line, and if I have used the right scan quality there are very few errors. Every now and then there will be something weird -- usually traceable to a problem with the original scan. It's not perfect but it's worth it to me. Some of my clients have hundreds of stock trades -- even if I had to make corrections on 10% (which I don't) it is still a HUGE time-saver.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-14/irs-conservatives-provide-details-regarding-all-your-facebook-or-twitter-activity

If they had reason to believe (or suspect) the organizations did not qualify, THEY COULD SIMPLY HAVE TURNED DOWN THE APPLICATIONS. There was no need to demand documents detailing membership applications, future plans of members, copies of letters to the editor written by members -- or start personal audits on those who submitted applications. This was so far over the top that it is utterly and completely antithetical to the principle of freedom of speech this country was based upon. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/10/10-crazy-things-the-irs-asked-tea-party-groups/comment-page-1/

Here in MA it was also claimed we would have a "checkbox." Not so much. New form (Schedule HC) with the Mass return, up to four pages (usually only need page 1). New form (1099-HC) to prove insurance. Only goes to one person, so divorced couples withhold it from the other, kids over 18 (who have to prove insurance too) don't get their own copy and don't know about the form, leading to letters from MassDOR. Multiple forms if multiple insurers BUT the state exempts itself some folks with state-sponsored coverage don't get a 1099-HC and frequently foret to provide info which requires call-backs or emails. ALL insurer info needs to be included for each spouse; up to four lines each are provided (with overflow sheet for more if needed). Then if someone does NOT have coverage, we get into the other three pages of the Sch HC. How long did they have coverage? Compare income with targeted levels, adjusted for family size and county. Are they subject to penalty? Figure penalty by worksheet (none of this is automatic, either, you have to go the the instruction book and override the fields on the ATX worksheets). Check box to request MassDOR hearing. Then represent your client at the hearing after having gathered all data on why they can't afford insurance or couldn't get it, send all that to hearing officer at least a week in advance, then have hearing (at least THAT can be done by phone). No extra work at all, nope. Wanna buy this bridge I got? I'll give you a GREAT price; you'll get rich on the tolls!

Camel's nose under the edge of the tent. First they exempt businesses under $X. Then they lower it, then they lower it some more. The principle established, they make the net tighter and tighter. Remember the income tax was never supposed to apply to the vast majority of income earners! And the details WILL be a nightmare; taxable, not taxable, include/exclude shipping... weird rules such as one we have here in MA where clothing is exempt from sales tax up to $175 per item; but it's only the amount over $175 for one item that is taxable. At least my state has done an absolutely ABYSMAL job of publicizing the existence of the Use Tax -- or that it is tax fraud _not_ to report it. Every year I have to explain to people what it is and what they have to track -- they get sent a pdf of a blurb from the state. They would be better off publicizing the use tax statutes. And I have a strong objection to the entire assumption here. WHY must "leveling the playing field" _always_ be a prelude to HIGHER taxes? Why not a prelude to cutting spending? Even the liberals AGREE that slashing sales tax increases sales and stimulates the economy -- else they would NOT institute the "sales tax holiday" weekends and crow triumphantly about the increased sales and the boom it meant for state businesses. Hoist on their own petard.

I bought the package as a 2nd-line (and may well end up switching permanently). They sent me an Easter card!

This year I had five clients either not return or (in one case) get fired. That's out of about 150 total. One was a brand-new client whom I fired before I started on her return! Another retired to Florida, and one was a guy whose price I'd hiked to get rid of him (phew!). And a young woman whose return I did when she was in college as there were multiple state returns required and other complications; she's now in CA working in only one place. Nine new clients, if I recall correctly.

The other side is that most of these little state and community groups run on a shoestring. They are headed by volunteers, and their donations frequently come by way of a coffee can with a slit in the lid, left out at meetings. The burden put on many of these tiny groups was absolutely inexcusable. And two weeks to respond -- when the IRS sat on paperwork for a year and a half? Punitive or incompetent or both -- you decide.

Surprise, surprise -- NOT.

Yeah, right. And my clients the artists who sell paintings and glass sculptures on the internet suddenly have to know the rules for over 9,000 locations (states, counties, cities). "Level the playing field" -- balderdash. Put small businesses under more business-killing regulations, more like. How about cutting wasteful spending FIRST? We've all seen it in our business customers -- areas where spending is more than it should be -- and they CARE because it's their money. Any one of us could go to any governmental organization and find oodles of waste. There is NO incentive to cut spending (rather, strong DIS-incentives); no reward for being good stewards of the money taken from the people; and political pressure to just go along, to keep their own cushy jobs.

Did you build them yourself for this cost?! If not, I want the name of your vendor!

Why would you NOT put it on Schedule C for the year paid? Cash-basis taxpayer, claim expense in year paid. If it is legitimately ALL for Sch C work, then it goes as professional fees on Sch C. Guy is very lucky in his accountant; my engagement letter for businesses states that if three invoices are unpaid I have the right to refuse to perform future work until a payment is made. I'd never let someone's tab grow to $17K. (Maybe if they were sole heir of a rich uncle in poor health, lol.)

http://www.theprogressiveaccountant.com/tax/caifornia-tax-preparer-agrees-to-ban.html Especially with your earlier comment about moving to CA...

When NASA was preparing for the Cassini-Huygens missions to Saturn and Titan, they bought -- and mothballed in climate-controlled storage -- multiple backup systems of the as-used computers the probes were designed to work with. They knew that, ten years down the road, hardware would have changed so much there was no guarantee they could still send or receive data with new equipment. So if any machine breaks down, they have brand-spanking-new, identical hardware, ready to go. The things one learns when spice and clients are rocket scientists...

The only thing I use IE for is Windows Updates (since I at least cannot run the updates on any other browser). Firefox and Chrome for everything else. IE has security flaws one could drive a truck through. Clients who work for defense contractors are often told by their employers that they may NOT use IE at work (and some of them, at home as well) because of recurring security problems.