Catherine

You mean, like half of our tax clients?

I agree and I disagree. There is a HUGE push towards panic by the media looking for clickbait. So the panic is most decidedly being pushed. Cui bono? Who benefits? What important issues are no longer in the public eye? Distraction works, no doubt. However, there is a long time between exposure and symptoms, but not between exposure and sharing the wealth (as it were), which means that for every case known, there are up to hundreds that are not yet known. The emergency measures are a good idea, but not because it's "so dangerous" rather it's logistics. Most people who get this will have mild cases; the younger the milder - so with kids it's almost un-noticeable. Serious cases tend to be those compromised (by age, by pre-existing condition, by smoking, by local pollution levels, by general sanitation, and more). That's a big factor in the seriousness they had in China; older population living crowded with bad sanitation, some of the world's worst pollution levels, and adult male smoking rates near 50%. If you get a boatload of serious cases needing ICU support *at once* you overwhelm the system. Then death rates skyrocket, because people who could recover with care can't get the care because the necessary equipment is in use for someone else. Plus anyone who has another health issue (bad accident, heart attack, who knows - acute scrofula, fer gosh sake) also cannot get care. Health workers are exhausted; they get sick. Or make sloppy, exhausted-people errors. When you slow down transmission, that overwhelmed system does NOT happen. The serious cases can all get attention, because there is space within the system to provide it. Death rates plummet. They found in the Spanish Flu in 1918 that cities like St Louis, that instituted school shut-downs etc earlier (before there were any cases in the city) had incidence rates and death rates far lower than cities like Denver, that didn't shut down until after cases cropped up. (Side note: as it turns out, a lot of the young, healthy people who died in the 1918 incident died from massive *aspirin* overdose - Bayer had a new drug, and was recommending dosage levels that turned out to be lethal. That got covered up for them, but the symptoms presented of hemorrhage etc in the younger victims were not signs of flu, but rather of aspirin overdose.) Transmission rates are high, yes - but transmission rates are far higher for measles or chicken pox. I remember being sent to the neighbor's house when the three boys had measles, so my brother and I would catch it and get it over with. We shared lollipops with them. Neither my brother nor I got measles. I'm sure most of us here are old enough that we remember similar events. Death rates will go DOWN as more cases are identified. There are so many mild cases simply not being reported currently that death rates are over-stated since those diagnosed are largely the more-seriously ill cases. If you are under 70 or so and healthy (and don't smoke or vape), there is a very low chance of having a serious case. Those who do get a serious case need substantial care for a longer than normal (for a flu or pneumonia) time. So slowing the rate of incidence of all cases will keep us better able to treat anyone who needs more help than a box of tissues, motrin, and chicken soup.

At the office, we are using bleach wipes on all knobs, the light switches, and keyboards a couple of times a day - more often if there are a lot of people in and out. We scan all client docs, so if I'm using docs on a screen, and my keyboard etc has been wiped, while I'm still trying (and failing, mostly) to keep hands away from face (hard, with glasses and allergies), I'm not too concerned. More hand-washing. There is a bottle of sanitizer; that is getting more use, too. The huge box of pens we bought a year or so ago is getting more use; I'm putting out new pens for each client and urging them to take 'em away with them. We're finding more people want to drop off docs without talking (fine with me!) and more are using our portal (even better). More people want returns mailed back rather than coming to pick up, so we are getting signature forms later. LOTS of questions about what is going to happen about deadlines; my standard answer is that we'll know when there is an official announcement.

You are spot-on, @Medlin Software. When I was training our current assistant as well as my prior assistant, I told each of them that they need to be able to look at the papers that came in for the client, and *know* what the final return should look like from those. Because the software can't do the thinking for them, and the software can come up with incorrect results.

@Pacun you may well be right in your guess at what the airline is thinking. That doesn't mean their "thinking" is right! If the trip was personal, the expense was personal, and the refund is personal. End of story. And it's not even like they *decided* not to go - travel was shut down; not possible. Get the cash, it's not taxable, the airline giving tax advice/scares is as meaningless as me giving advice to a trained pilot on how to fly.

"A grim old accountant lay dying, his briefcase supporting his head. His pinstripes were all of a tatter, as he rose on his elbow and said, "Wrap me up with me brolly and briefcase, and bury me deep down below, with me files on the floor of the file room, in a place where the tax men don't go." First verse of "The Dying Accountant" sung to the tune of "Tarpaulin Jacket" and performed by the Inland Navigators Bush Band of Sydney Australia. At one point he puts a brick through his video screen. Great song.

where's the fun in that?

Hear, hear! I agree that QuickBooks is a ROYAL pain in the patootie. However, if you ever work with the online version, you will KISS your computer when you go back to the desktop version. I loathe, detest, and abhor the online version. We refuse any new clients using QBO, and are working to get our remaining online clients onto a desktop version. Even the Apple version of QB is better than QBO!

Me, too! (Especially the little girl who complains about "the xml we've given them like SEVEN times already!")

Report the income on the estate income return, yes. But then ALSO add in "repayment of over-paid pension" as a correction. The estate should not be paying tax on income that was repaid. I could tell you where to enter that in Drake, but someone else will have to provide that detail for ATX. If it comes out a wash ($0 total) then lower the repayment by $1 ($1 more income). In general, as long as there is taxable income generated, the detail information does transmit. It's when the total comes out to zero that the details get left behind.

We find these sometimes more complex than C-corp returns, because of basis tracking and multiple shareholders plus their health insurance (frequently done wrong). For a new client, $1200 minimum. We will discount from there if need be - sometimes very heavily - but always show the full price on the bill, then the discount. If we are doing the personal returns we discount (package pricing). If their accounting is ready to go (reports ready to use as-is, maybe tease out shareholder health insurance from employee, and of course add in depreciation) that also gets people an excellent discount. If we get a train-wreck, then they pay bookkeeping fees for QB repair on top of that return fee.

Right about now, we could all use 2 1/2 minutes of remembering how much fun we are having.

Because it takes a minute to fill out the reporting form, and far longer to answer the CP2000 letter a year and a half from now.

THANK YOU, @Medlin Software for that shortcut! @TaxmannEA the spurious character might be a SPACE. Impossible to see. If you can find the right screen, start with the first entry field and highlight it, hit "Delete" tab to next, rinse and repeat for all fields on that screen. Faster to do than to explain - but it should work, once you're on the right screen.

I'm so tired tonight that when I first read this I read "E I E I O" and was going to make a joke about Old MacDonald. You might be missing something. About ten or a dozen years ago they changed the foreign exclusion so that income above the exclusion would be taxed at the rate applicable without the exclusion (hit one of my clients, living in the Philppines, hard that first year post-change). If your client's income was at $420K, they will get taxed at the highest bracket. The $57K excluded will be 22% marginal bracket income, and the tax on that amount (assuming what you have given is the TAXABLE income, after deductions) is about $8,400. So a number closer to $8,400 should be the amount of tax less than otherwise. Does that make sense, or am I too tired to explain it correctly? Maybe I should just go back to reciting "Old MacDonald had a farm" instead.

The idea was thunked up by both of them, but one was the primary person active and the other was consulting. So yes, both were involved. One will claim the whole operation as her Sch C, and the other will claim her portion of the income on her own Sch C as a consultant to the first one. Eventually (assuming it all works out the way they'd like) they will form a corporation and go on payroll. At that time, they'll need a new EIN anyhow, along with payroll processing and state reporting and all the rest. This is really for a couple of years until they decide it will make them enough money to be worth the effort to incorporate and apply for 501c3 status (you can't go from partnership to corporate 501c3 without a new EIN, so either way they're stuck with that).

Sent using the entity's EIN - but there was NO tax structure chosen at the time the EIN was assigned. So it was like a Sch C sending out 1099s. And yes, I got a retainer and did nothing until the check cleared. Although these are good clients I generally would not worry about. They got really bad advice from people who *claimed* to be specialists in non-profit law *and* taxation.

The original partnership fiscal-year return was NOT all zeros; it had fiscal-year figures. I propose to amend that return TO all zeros and calendar year (as the IRS demanded of them) and mark it both initial and final. Plus the explanatory letter - copies of the IRS letters telling them this wasn't allowed and to fix it should help. Then amend 2018 personal to include Sch C. The "consultant" is cuz instead of doing K-1s to partners they skipped that and sent 1099-MISCs to both individuals. The Sch C "partner" 1099-MISC does a circle: out as expense and back in as income; no net change. The other "partner" gets her 1099-MISC and reports on her own return. Amended 1040 also gets explanatory letters. 2019 we do it all right, from the start. Oh good; I was hoping this sounded reasonable to more than just me and my business partner.

Client and a friend created a small group and decided that they wanted to be a non-profit but weren't ready to apply for 501c3. Got an EIN but with no entity type chosen. Worked with a "fiscal sponsor" and some local agencies who all use fiscal years, so the two of them decided to be a "partnership" and use a fiscal year. Then they filed a fy p'ship return (on their own, done wrong, whatever) and NEVER (of course!) talked to us about it. Big boo-boo. Fiscal year dis-allowed, mega penalties for "late" return. They called and got the penalties reversed. THEN they called us. In looking over the mess, what they actually have is a sole prop with a consultant (the buddy). I now have a POA for the whole mess. My thought is to re-file (amend) the p'ship return as calendar year, all zeros, marked "initial" and "final" and amend the personal return to include the Sch C. Explanatory statements for both to be attached. Does this sound like it will work? It makes the most sense out of all the possibilities. The IRS would get the right tax, the mess would get extricated and fixed, and when/if they go for 501c3 they'll need a new EIN regardless of current filing method. Have I missed something blatant?

Bingo; that's the crucial part. Yes, good suits will run that $850. Custom three piece, double that price. But the thrift stores don't care, and won't charge more for a "bespoke" suit than for an off-the-rack Sears special.

I've generally used 25% for our donations. 25% of what WE paid; not what it would cost today.

Not self-employed. Not employed in the same field. Someone called him and said, "We've heard you are an expert on X; can you help us?" and it was an interesting problem. Yes he didn't even realize he was going to be paid until the project was well underway. He won't do it again; it has taken way more time than expected (even after doubling what they told him they'd need). He's an expert in the field - but it's a hobby he's been involved in for 50 years. Never a job, never self-employment, always for the love of the activity. Not run like a business. Plenty of other income. How does that factor in?

I think that comes under the heading of "good riddance!"

Client was asked to serve as an expert witness. Not something he does for profit; someone who *does* do this for profit spent some time looking for someone with skills to do some testing, and found the client. Turned out to be a lot more work than expected, so he has about $9K of expert witness income. But he is NOT in the business of providing same, and after this bout says he'll turn down any future work. I'm thinking this is NOT self-employment, as there was and is no profit motive. But all the guidance I can find is about this work FOR profit; people whose livelihood is this work. Opinions and references, anyone? Thanks!

Whew indeed! I had something similar a few years ago, except I did have originals, and only ONE form was missing. Turned out it had fallen behind the file cabinet (still don't know HOW it could have gotten there, since it should have been with its fellow forms and not on the file cabinet), and let me tell you it was FUN (not!) fishing it out. But man oh man was I frantic trying to find it. Finally remembered hearing something fall the day before but saw nothing when I looked, and started looking behind things. It's an extremely upsetting thing to happen! Glad you figured it out.