SCL

4) i received a 'tax refund express/tax alliance' postcard in the mail today. i almost went with them last year.

they seem to be a serious contender for the low volume tax prep business & hopefully for a few more years.

5) the great carnac has been predicting from the grave for awhile. i thought i heard: TRX - "what is the new ATX?"

i thought for sure that i read/understood that 1 client with a fed/piggyback state efile counted as 1 efile toward the 100 (1040 office). i can believe/understand that an efile extension uses up 1 efile of the 100.

i am operating under the assumption that "validated" means it is timely filed and everything is "groovy".

i wish atx would clarify it means the efiled return (extension or actual return) is timely filed. i believe it is.

also, what is the cut off time this evening.

thank the stars they have their "official" community available by "popular demand".

i think the validated by efc is an initial sign they are in the loop.

it's just taking some time to accept.

FYI. 11:30 pm: transmit 1/good - then transmit 2 more/good. and goodnite.

mm, yuk-yuk! i want to 'be like mike'!

received 3 acks. tried to transmit 3 returns - rejected.

lesson learned for future transmissions:

transmit 1 to see if it goes through so i don't have to recreate more than 1 efile reject - pita.

i think?, if atx gets it before midnite, its good. i imagine atx will have info about this soon.

also, for many years most employee health ins costs in larger companies (smaller companies too) are pretax deductions from gross wages - no deduction anyway.

re; the new atx/(?taxwise/cch) board - LOLOLOLOL and then LOLOLOLOL some more.

i will say/admit that this filing season has been better than the prior several years for my small tax practice.

what does that mean? i'm really conflicted now, after expecting the worst this year.

will i renew with atx despite my total inclination to dump their sorry client disrespecting ass?

LTC insurance contracts - fm 8853, pg 2, sec c & instructions is a place to start.

last year when i worked (stumbled) through a similar case but with less money, the atx program yielded no reported taxable income on an efile - what i was expecting. i'm waiting out an irs response

i'm not sure about prior year tax benefits (i had none). it's possible you may have some taxable income.

the irs has issued a notice (Notice 2008-5) clarifying when an individual will not be a QC of another taxpayer.

under Sec 152(d)(1)(D), an indiv is not a QR of the taxpayer (and eligible for the dep exemption) if he/she is the QC of any other taxpayer.

the notice provides that the dep will NOT be a QC of any indiv that is not req to file a tax return under Sec 6012 and either does not file a return or else files soley to obtain a refund of income tax withholding.

generated from a 1099LTC - can these returns be efiled? my initial inquiry indicates they can be. thanks for response.

I assume you mean I am on VACATION in Hawaii... Far from...Don't get me going....

i was just kidding. i know work is hard everywhere, and i'm sure you work extra hard no matter where you are. i was jealously bitchin' because you are in hawaii and i am in ice bound iowa - my bad.

jainen - fair enough. it very well is a support (NUMBERS) question - jmcq knows how to do that. i saw cal dom partner and glazed over. in fact i am still glazing.

nevertheless, do you have an opinion about my mistaken diversion? - students with loans (and NUMBERS) as dep of parents and all the consequences that follow.

thanks mmars, ajuroff, (earlier) montana ea, and others regarding the rebates.

i think i understand that a regular return can be e-filed for low income/soc sec only taxpayers (no tax liability) without having to dummy up some pseudo-return.

i am still waiting just a little longer for total confirmation. what's the hurry (lol).

Thank You for your help!

i have had clients make ira contributions (based on their pre-retirement age, code 3 pensions as line 7 earned income) that double bubbles the deduction when their soc sec disability income is taxable.

First let me tell Gerald and Michaelmars that I could not read your comments this morning because I left my office before your post. I met with my new client for 45 minutes before the audit meeting. I consider this first meeting with the auditor a success. The tax liability was decreased from $14,000.00 to $6,200.00; besides, the auditor gave us until 03/19/07 to show documentation that I promise my client will get to substantiate other expenses in question.

So, Thank you to all of you.

this story is why an answer board is invaluable (flipit cch that you don't know it). jainen, gerald, mmars, and you scores of others - thanks for all that you do out of the type A personality of your heart!!

I'll 2nd that!! Good to have you here, Dave!!

Eli

i'll third that!!

As for NOW, I am just taking a break.

isn't taking a break in hawaii something like an oxymoron?

jmcq - oh, it is a california dom partner quest. out here in the heartland, i have no idea what you are talking about. the ia leg recently tried for a constitutional amendment to ban such things - it failed. may the force be with you.

joanmcq - you suggest parents as dep, but i think you are asking the 'bull in the china shop' question - college students as dep (loans?).

b kammen (hi b - come on down) used to argue that the irs can not care whether a student contributes over half of his own support (loans) and is therefore not a dep of parent.

then the parent looses exemption, college tuition deds/credits and whatever else. the student gets no benefit of anything since there is no tax liability.

i have read that the technical solution is for loans to be in parents name and the student a cosigner. parents don't want to do this cause the kid can/will stick the parent with the loan repayment.

regarding jack from ohio's example.

i'm wondering (asking), why that return - as a regular efile with 0 tax liability - could not generate the min 300x2 rebate - without having to dummy up some exception/example 1040 or 1040a.

imo - i'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'won recent for 07', but it sounds like irs caved on their prior year disallowance of eic for at least the last two years (cause i think that is how long a simple disallowance is in effect).

you seem to be winning the fight for the last two years, and by extension, however far back is your claim within the statute of limitations.