Catherine

Happy Birthday, Jainen! And many happy returns! (yes, terrible pun intended)

Catherine

<snip>

It's great that the companies now are putting out commercials we actually enjoy going back to watch.

We can thank the invention of the "mute" button for this, I do believe. Once we were no longer captive, the commercial had to be worth bothering with.

Catherine

For Mel:

http://www.cdw.com/content/about/tv-commercials.asp

taxbilly

Watch all the way to the end through the info boilerplate; there are tag lines worth seeing.

Catherine

Thanks for that happy outcome news, JKL. Don is beginning to improve now, and he's been moved to the Transitional Care floor. Hopefully he'll be well enough to come home soon. Thanks to all of you for your prayers.

We're all very glad to hear that Don is improving. I hope that he does come home soon, and that neither of you faces any more health crises for years to come.

Catherine

I can't e-file an 1120S because I have two errors that say the value must be numeric and without cents (limited to 15 characters).

I have checked every line and all details for every number on the return but everything is entered correctly.

Has anyone else experienced this problem?

What do I need to do to clear the errors and e-file the return?

Thanks.

Be warned that tiny marks also count and "non-numeric" -- including periods, apostrophes, and BLANK SPACES!!! (Ask me how I know this.....) Go through the return and, under edit, hit "Restore Field" to get rid of spurious characters

Catherine

If Microsoft were to continue to fix Vista for 7 years as they did for XP, then I'm sure it could reach XP's level of stability. One issue with (32bit) XP is that it's only going to recognize a maximum of 3.5GB of RAM.

And the problem with _that_ is, the way Microsoft does bloatware, 3.5GB of RAM soon won't be enough to load Office, let alone any more useful programs.

Open Office, anyone?

Catherine

Thank you to all who answered, and also to those who did not reply but did keep us in your thoughts and prayers. Don is doing better, although he is going to have to have surgery to remove his gall bladder, some time this week, we expect. He's been having a rough time but is feeling better now, and I am told that the surgery is pretty simple and recovery times are usually short. Here's hoping........

Of course, like most men, he's a bit of a baby when it comes to being in the hospital. But he's trying hard to be a good patient, and so far so good. Only one 'explosion' in a full week!

They do great work with gallbladders these days. My husband and I went out to take care of his mother when she had to have hers out a couple of years ago. She was 84 at the time and had laparoscopic day surgery. We brought her in first thing in the morning, had her home by mid-afternoon. The very next day, I had to physically remove a dust mop from her hands -- she was trying to mop up dog hair in the hall. I hope Don's goes as smoothly.

Catherine

Well, we are back in the hospital, gall bladder this time. Looks like we will be there through at least Tuesday. Please keep both Don and me in your prayers.

Done. And ongoing, through Tuesday at least.

Catherine

Cute. And tech support has it right about those enhancement programs, Hot Food especially works very well when combined with Lingerie.

I also thought it was a reminder to us all of what level of help proper tech support should provide....

Catherine

With apologies to all the men in the group.....

Dear Tech Support:

Last year I upgraded from Boyfriend 5.0 to Husband 1.0 and noticed a distinct slow-down in the overall performance, particularly in the flower and jewelry applications, which operated flawlessly under Boyfriend 5.0.

In addition, Husband 1.0 uninstalled many other valuable programs, such as Romance 9.5 and Personal Attention 6.5, and then installed undesirable programs such as NFL 5.0, NHL 4.3, MLB 3.0, and NBA 3.6. Conversation 8.0 no longer runs, and Housecleaning 2.6 simply crashes the system. I've tried running Nagging 5.3 to fix these problems, to no avail.

What can I do?

Signed,

Desperate

Dear Desperate:

First, keep in mind Boyfriend 5.0 is an Entertainment Package, while Husband 1.0 is an Operating System. Try to enter the command: "C:/ ITHOUGHTYOULOVEDME" to download Tears 6.2, which automatically should install Guilt 3.0. If that application works as designed, Husband 1.0 should then automatically run the applications Jewelry 2.0 and Flowers 3.5. But remember, overuse of the above application can cause Husband 1.0 to default to Grumpy Silence 2.5, Happy Hour 7.0, or Beer 6.1. Beer 6.1 is a very bad program that will create Snoring Loudly. Whatever you do, DO NOT install Mother-in-law 1.0 or reinstall another Boyfriend program. These are not supported applications and will crash Husband 1.0. In summary, Husband 1.0 is a great program, but it does have limited memory and cannot learn new applications quickly. You might consider buying additional software to improve memory and performance. I personally recommend Hot Food 3.0 and Lingerie 7.7.

Good Luck,

Tech Support

My wife's HP may need to be replaced. She has been using xp home edition, but apparantely it is no longer available. Has anyone had experience with VISTA? I use xp professional on my PC and we have them on a wired router using cable modem for internet. Any probem with VISTA on her machine & XP on mine? I just hate having to change computers & I am concerned with any new operating system until it has been around for awhile. Thanks for you input.

One of our family friends is an IT specialist; his recommendation is to avoid VISTA at all costs. Especially if you have older peripherals (printers, scanners, etc), as there are still compatibility problems with drivers for those devices and VISTA.

It is still possible to get XP Pro computers. You have to look (and sometimes ask specifically), but they are available. Anyone who builds computers (as some folks here and on other groups have done) can certainly install XP Pro.

Catherine

I agree Cathrine, but still, if they got a real SURGE of letters from preparers, they are political enough to react to it. And after all, this is not about expanding the government's reach into the taxpayers pockets. It's just about fairness to the preparers who help the government to get their money.

I would also hope that each of the national organizations like NATP etc would consider funding a court challenge of the first member they have who is penalized under that position. And advertise that fact, to their members, so that we end up with several challenges fought through the courts, because I believe that we would win. It's just that many preparers would not have the resources to carry on such a fight, on their own, so they would pay up by default. What do the rest of you say to putting forth such a suggestion to any tax organization you belong to?

I'll suggest it to the NAEA and my state affiliate (MA). Unless someone else has national connections; I just pay my dues every year nationally but am more involved at the state level.

Catherine

My point was that the IRS should not be allowed to assess penalties for actions we take that are neither falsely reporting the business results nor hiding a variance from what the IRS considers 'good practice'. Since the IRS has the corporate officer's salaries on a separate line, there is no further need for us to 'highlight' this item. They have had the ability to identify those companies who do not pay salary to their officers since the Sub S return began. This is simply a combination, IMO, of revenue generation and preparer intimidation, to try to make us do even more of their work for them. That is what needs to be pointed out the Congressmen.

Well said, KC.

There are two functions being spliced: accurate preparation and reporting of what actually occurred, and enforcement of accounting/tax rules at the specific taxpayer level.

The first is the job of tax preparers. Advice and recommendation on the second is also the job of tax preparers. But enforcement is the job of the collecting agency. Trying to force us to take on a role not our own will drive away people who can't stomach being an IRS enforcer. It will increase the number of poorly prepared returns submitted (either self-prepared or done by unqualified preparers). And as these requirements keep creeping in, clients will lose the sense of us as their allies and reliable resources, and they will start to hide information from us. Ultimately, it serves no one.

OK. Time to leave this thread and go write my congresscritters. Unfortunately for me, being in ultra-liberal Massachusetts, my congresscritters have never seen a regulation they didn't want to expand.... I am reminded of a line from Tolkien, "...over the years we have fought the long defeat" (paraphrased).

Catherine

>>every board I go on where he responds<<

I post on three tax boards. One is a public forum where I give general answers citing IRS Pubs and instructions. One is a tax reference board, where I give researched citations of regs and case law. And one is this ATX Community where I discuss professional issues such as client relations, citing various sources and labeling my posts as opinion.

Catherine, I apologize for the pronoun "you" when I meant an impersonal "someone." Circular 230 says whatever it says; anybody can read it and decide if I quoted accurately. The same document (closely based on the Internal Revenue Code) establishes the authority for penalties because of the possibility that a practitioner would violate the sections I quoted. The authority specifically identifies those sections by number, which is how I got the opinion ("I suppose") that one lead to the other.

I try to be clear in explaining how I reach my opinions as well as in the opinions themselves. Others may express other opinions, with or without explanation.

Apology accepted.

There are certainly preparers who disregard the rules. I had a client whose previous preparer told her to sign and mail in her returns as "self-prepared" because there was less chance of an audit that way. The return he had prepared was a masterpiece of creativity and fantasy, and he deserved either a medal or jail time; perhaps both.

>>Our job is to tell our clients what the rules are, and to prepare an accurate return based on what they have chosen to do<<

In my opinion, our job is to comply with the law which clearly imposes a duty of "due diligence" and avoiding a return "that demonstrates an intentional disregard of a rule or regulation" unless it also contains a disclosure of "a good faith challenge." (Quotes from Circular 230). You may hold a different opinion, which I suppose is why Congress had to establish preparer penalties in the first place.

I agree we can't force the client to change practices, and have stated that agreement at least twice already in this thread. The company can do whatever it wants with its money. The issue is solely how to fill out the tax return, not how to run the business. If they come to me for tax preparation, I must use my best professional judgment in reporting the payments the way that the tax code defines them. There may be some room for the client's preference for a conservative or aggressive stance, but that is limited and certainly doesn't extend so far as reporting distributions without ANY salary. If a client does not care for my professional judgment, why in the world would he ask me to do the return?

You completely neglected the portion of my response that talked about attached statements. If the client "intentionally disregards a rule or regulation" despite strong recommendations to the contrary, the penalties should fall ON THAT CLIENT, and NOT on the preparer. The preparer HAS performed due diligence in this area by informing the client, making strong recommendations, and then attaching the disclosure to the return.

The snide remark about "Congress had to establish preparer penalties in the first place" is a personal attack. And has no place in this forum.

I have respected your opinions in the past and have followed some lively threads with interest, striving to see the point of view presented by various people, always to my benefit and learning. But my respect for you has fallen significantly today.

<snip>

------

>>writing to their representatives<<

As for contacting your Congressman, you'll need something more compelling than, "It's not FAIR to hold us responsible for how we report expenses on the returns we sign."

But the point is not "fairness", but rather that we, as preparers, have no authority in our client's corporations to authorize - or de-authorize - any one particular treatment of expenses. Our job is to tell our clients what the rules are, and to prepare an accurate return based on what they have chosen to do. We all have clients who take much more conservative stands than they are entitled to, and those who push the edge of aggressive stands. We must make them aware of their rights and responsibilities. But they choose their level of comfort; we are neither their nannies nor their keepers, to choose for them.

If a client came to me with zero salary but large distributions, I would be remiss to not tell that client of the rules and the consequences of breaking those rules. I may choose to decline to prepare the return, or choose to prepare it but add statements etc. But I have NO authority to force this client to change his practices. To then hold me responsible for this person's choices does nothing to advance a goal of accurate and complete reporting for tax purposes. The IRS's job should be to penalize the shareholder not following the rules, and not to penalize the person whose work will bring the case to them! Their job will be made harder if they must wade through poorly-prepared S-corp returns (done either by the shareholder or an unskilled preparer, if no qualified preparer will touch it), looking for no-salary cases.

And that should be an argument that will catch a congresscritter's attention; less money brought in.

Catherine

Hi all --

I have a new client with a messed-up situation. The business entity was a two-member LLC filing a 1065; one member (#2) walked out July '07. Remaining member (#1) filed for extension in mid-April. I got some (maybe most) of the information about two weeks ago.

Here are the issues/questions I'm pondering:

Member #2 leaving ended the partnership filing -- a short year 1065 should have been filed Nov 07. So that will be a late filing; no help for it now.

Balance of 2007 goes on remaining owner's Schedule C for 2007.

But -- the remaining member (#1) has been on payroll since Jan 07. In addition, he's taking taking some distributions. I found references on how a member may be considered an LLC employee, restrictions on benefits, etc. However, the Form 1065 line 9 for wages specifically states "other than to partners". Do I disregard this caution in this instance? Or, if they must be reported elsewhere -- then where?

Anything else people can warn me to check for?

Thanks.

Catherine

One the Form 1-NR/PY you should check "Nonresident". The only income taxed in MA will be MA-source income (as opposed to some states that look at whole income, then apply a percentage correction to the tax due).

On the Schedule R/NR, put the K-1 income on lined 9C and 9D. Interest will go on Line 24C only. Column A will get regular totals from the Federal; it's the overall. The _only_ amount you should end up with at the bottom of column E should be the MA partnership income.

You should end up with about $740 tax due to MA.

Feel free to email me off-group with more questions; [email protected] is the address.

Catherine

Hey Catherine,

I'd like to know more about your "serious [MA] e-filing problems;" for that's just what's 'killing' me, right now.

This Wednesday, I got a reject notice from ATX for a New York resident (with an SK-1 for MA) -- while his fed & NY e-files sailed through. On Thursday, ATX's "Loranda" promised to keep on top of my problem, and to followup call me Friday morning. Didn't happen; so, Friday noon I reached "Brandy," who merely re-logged my problem and recited the company line that there was no way for her to "expedite" the problem, but she'd simply send another email to "the programmers" -- despite my urgent news that I'm leaving the country for two weeks this Monday.

Almost needless to say, I've heard squat from ATX/CCH since. So, two whole weeks from now, I assume I'll have to reinvigorate my "case." My client & I are lucky that he owes nothing; but, if you could shed any light on what you've undergone with ATX in that jurisdiction, I'd be most grateful.

Very truly yours, TaxCPANY.

The problem I've had over and over with individuals, partnerships, and S-corps is this: once you e-file an extension through ATX, it gets logged in their computers as the _return_ filed. So when you later go to e-file the return, it gets rejected by EFC for having already been transmitted. The EFC people have to do some special shenanigans to free the return to be transmitted to MassDOR. Sometimes (but not always) you get an e-file acceptance; sometimes you have to go to the MassDOR website and see there if they've accepted the return -- or call ATX and have them tell you verbally.

There have been some other problems, but that's been the main one this year.

Catherine

Sent to me by a tax preparer friend:

The local restaurant was so sure that its host was the strongest man around that they offered a standing

$1000 bet.

The host would squeeze a lemon until all the juice ran into a glass, and hand the lemon to a patron. Anyone

who could squeeze one more drop of juice out would win the money.

Many people had tried over time (weight lifters, longshoremen, etc.), but nobody could do it.

Then one day, this scrawny little man came in, wearing thick glasses and a polyester suit, and said in a tiny,

squeaky voice, "I'd like to try the bet."

After the laughter had died down, the host said "OK," grabbed a lemon and squeezed away. Then he handed

the wrinkled remains of the rind to the little man.

But the crowd's laughter turned to total silence as the man clenched his fist around the lemon and six drops

fell into the glass.

As the crowd cheered, the host paid the $1000, and asked the little man, What do you do for a living? Are

you a lumberjack, a weightlifter, or what?"

The man replied, "I work for the IRS."

How about this one, given to me by a friend years ago:

Dear Lord,

So far today, God, I've done all right. I haven't gossiped, haven't lost my temper, haven't been greedy, grumpy, nasty, selfish, or over-indulgent. I'm very thankful for that. But in a few minutes, God, I'm going to get out of bed, and from then on, I'm going to need a lot more help.

Amen.

Anyone taken the new EA test? Can you give some good study guide or reference. I do not want to take this more than once. Many thanks.

I took the old test and have NO interest in taking the new one. I used the Gleim course to prepare, and passed all four sections first try. Good luck.

Catherine

I made the decision to switch to Drake for next season. ~$1,100 for their package, great support, and genuine interest in my practice.

I used ATX for 7 years, and was happy with the software, but I just can't continue with a company that seems to have so little interest in anything but reaching into my pockets. No more "MyATX" that requires tech support just to log in to the website. No more "savings code" that offers no savings. No more amazing disappearing services!

I am a creature of habit, so I really did not want to change software, but I can't shake the feeling that a move was going to come whether I made it or waited for CCH to force the issue even more.

The worst thing that comes out of this is how my opinion of CCH has so dramatically shifted over the past couple of years. I used to consider them as the leader in tax research, and I assumed all the company's products matched the quality of the research services I had used before I went out as an independent CPA. After seeing how they have handled the ATX acquisition and transition, I would be very unlikely to give them an opportunity again.

Good luck to all, and I am sure I will continue to check in at this site.

Tom

Please let us know how it goes! I'm sticking with ATX for the coming tax year, but they are most definitely "on probation". I had some serious e-filing problems (especially with MA), and lots of instances where information did not flow properly to state forms. I was sorely tempted by Drake this year, but didn't quite make up my mind to switch.

I'm sure there are a number of us besides just me who will be very curious how it goes for you -- the easy stuff, the surprise "gotcha's", the weirdnesses, and all.

Catherine

This whole thread reminds me of a demotivational poster I just purchased for my office:

I've been thinking of buying that one myself. LOL!!

Catherine

>>Any chance Congress will screw up the wording and we get a double dip?<<

By definition, Congress can't screw up. Whatever they say, is the law. In this case the law will say you can't base the new deduction on taxes used to determine AGI under Section 62(a), that is, business expenses. Now it's down to President Flip-Flop, who said he would veto it before he said he would sign it.

I disagree; the mere fact that Congress' screw-ups become law does not change the fact that they screw up (and durned near everything they touch gets screwed up in one way or another, in my view).

They have simply developed an efficient method for codifying idiocy.

This opinion is most decidedly worth every penny you have paid for it.

Catherine