Slippery Pencil

Isn't the minimum for having FICA withheld basically zero?

Aren't counties exempt from FICA?

Creating a negative payroll check and entering a negative line on a data input worksheet for Sch A are worlds apart. Probably galaxies apart. There is no comparison. As you said, there is no such thing as a negative paycheck. Everyone who has passed Accounting 101 knows there are adjustments made on worksheets. That's what worksheets are for. This is typical ATX bullshit programming from people who have no idea how to operate a tax practice.

I put negative adjustments in all the time and not a single one of them was a refund of prior year amounts. This is another typical bullshit move on the programmers part.

Whose money was deposited into the account? If none of her money went into the account, should the income be reported on her return?

It's a new feature they implemented 4 or 5 years ago. I think they felt they needed to add something to compensate for the excessive price increase each year.

This post on the other forum suggests changing the 'late payment / filing penalty and interest' tab on the 1040. It seems to have worked, at least on the one test client so far. https://community.atxinc.com/forums/thread/285718.aspx

How do I get the client letter to show the due dates as 7/15 instead of 4/15? I've changed the master forms, but every client I rollover still says 4/15.

I've read on other boards a lot of other programs do this. I'm not surprised ATX doesn't.

http://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/podcasts/

Just received a package from Wolters Kluwer containing ATX install codes, 2018 US Master Tax Guide, 2017 State Tax Handbook, & 2016 TheTaxBook. The ATX website states TheTaxBook Deluxe & CCH All States Tax Handbook are included in the MAX program. I've never received these in the past. Did they neglect to send them to me in past years or are they including completely unnecessary and unwanted items this year to justify the $200 price increase? Is including the previous years version some sort of bait & switch or will they send the current version? Did WK buy out TheTaxBook? I've never used it, but I've heard good things about the company. I feel sorry for the users if WK bought it out.

Have had this problem since the first day of tax season, and as usual, ATX won't even reply to inquiries about it.

Stop offering and just prepare them.

Anyone know how to get the client letter to realize the return is not being efiled? If I check "let ATX decide" it is now printing a warning that there's no EFINFO form and states that the return has been successfully efiled. That was the only option that use to get it to print mailing instructions, but not anymore.

Learn how to haggle. Your second price should be higher than the first.

No one said anything of the sort. I suppose if you make ridiculous claims, then it does amount to nothing other than argument for argument sake.

I find that believable. They probably contacted all the cheerleaders who kept making comments like "I've never had to call support" or "I don't have that problem, it's obviously your system not the program". GIGO.

Maybe your new clients will be living in the 21st century.

How does it extend the life of the building? Saying it does it like saying replacing a broken window pane extends the life of the building. Having a functioning roof doesn't extend the original life of the building. The life of the building is the life if properly maintained. By not making the repair you are shortening the expected life of the building. A $6000 roof, that's an expense no questions asked.

The research was done years ago for appeals. I just updated the inflation adjusted numbers to current. Brick buildings should last centuries. If I put 30 year shingles on a building that should last centuries, that's an expense. 30 years later when I replace those shingles, that's an expense. It adds no value or useful life to the building.

I had a client replace siding that was expensed. About 40% of the siding was stolen off the house while it was vacant between tenants. The auditor claimed ripping off the rest and replacing it was an improvement, thus a capital expenditure. If he had left the remaining siding and replaced only the stolen stuff it would have been a repair. The auditor said if I found some court cases she'd change her mind. I came up w/ Oberman Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner, Northern & Cox vs Commissioner, & Illinois Merchants Trust Co. In Oberman, the Court held that the cost of replacing a roof as well as the cost of inserting an expansion joint in the roof was a deductible expense ($20,791 in 1961 or 159,000 in 2012 dollars according to the federal govt’s online CPI calculator). The Court observed that "it is necessary to take into consideration the purpose for which an expenditure is made in order to determine whether such expenditure is capital in nature or constitutes a current expense." Since Oberman's "only purpose in having the work done was to prevent leakage and keep the leased property in an operating condition over its probable useful life and not to prolong the life of the property, increase its value, or make it adaptable to another use. There was no replacement or substitution of the roof." The Court allowed a deduction. In Northern, the Court held that the cost ($49,308 in 1998, equal to $69,000 in 2012) of replacing roof covering was a deductible repair expense. The repairs were done to maintain normal operating condition. In Illinois Merchants Trust the court allowed deductions for repairs to the foundation ($46,562 in 1920 or $469,000 in 2012) stating the amount was not required to be capitalized. I also relied upon temp reg 1.263(a)-1 1.263(a)-1. Capital expenditures; in general (f) CAPITALIZATION OF BETTERMENTS-- (1) IN GENERAL. A taxpayer must capitalize amounts paid that result in the betterment of a unit of property. An amount paid results in the betterment of a unit of property only if it-- (i) Ameliorates a material condition or defect that either existed prior to the taxpayer's acquisition of the unit of property or arose during the production of the unit of property, whether or not the taxpayer was aware of the condition or defect at the time of acquisition or production; (ii) Results in a material addition (including a physical enlargement, expansion, or extension) to the unit of property; or (iii) Results in a material increase in capacity (including additional cubic or square space), productivity, efficiency, strength, or quality of the unit of property or the output of the unit of property. Numerous examples are included in the reg. I pointed out three of them. EXAMPLE 9. Not a betterment; replacement with same part. X owns a small retail shop. In 2008, a storm damages the roof of X's shop by displacing numerous wooden shingles. X decides to replace all the wooden shingles on the roof and hires a contractor to replace all the shingles on the roof with new wooden shingles. Assume the shop building and its structural components are the unit of property. The event necessitating the expenditure was the storm. Prior to the storm, the retail shop was functioning for its intended use. The expenditure did not result in a material addition, or material increase in the capacity, productivity, efficiency, strength or quality of the shop or the output of the shop compared to the condition of the shop prior to the storm. Therefore, the amounts paid by X to reshingle the roof with wooden shingles do not result in betterment to the shop building. X is not required to capitalize as an improvement under this paragraph (f) amounts paid to replace the shingles. EXAMPLE 10. Not a betterment; replacement with comparable part. Assume the same facts as in Example 9, except that wooden shingles are not available on the market. X decides to replace all the wooden shingles with comparable asphalt shingles. The amounts paid by X to reshingle the roof with asphalt shingles do not result in a betterment to the shop, even though the asphalt shingles may be stronger than the wooden shingles. Because the wooden shingles could not practicably be replaced with new wooden shingles, the replacement of the old shingles with comparable asphalt shingles does not, by itself, result in an improvement to the shop. X is not required to capitalize as an improvement under this paragraph (f) amounts paid to replace the shingles. EXAMPLE 11. Betterment; replacement with improved parts. Assume the same facts as in Example 9, except that, instead of replacing the wooden shingles with asphalt shingles, X decides to replace all the wooden shingles with shingles made of lightweight composite materials that are maintenance-free and do not absorb moisture. The new shingles have a 50-year warranty and a Class A fire rating. The expenditure for these shingles resulted in a material increase in the quality of the shop building as compared to the condition of the shop building prior to the storm. X must capitalize amounts paid to reshingle the roof as an improvement under this paragraph (f) because they result in a betterment to the shop. The auditor denied the deduction. The auditor's decision was overturned on appeal. The appeals conference consisted of a five minute phone call where the appeals officer stated I presented a pretty solid case and she was allowing the deduction.

If so, is there something different we do or is it the same procedure?

If that was true, ATX PDF wouldn't show up in the list either. Just another indicator that ATX/CCH doesn't give a shit how difficult they make it to actually prepare a return. Is it still showing up? Mine just disappeared after updating.

No time limit. See question 39 http://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-33_IRB/ar08.html#d0e1935

Diarrhea - you, the dog, or the client?