David1980

They already did, a week or two ago. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204447,00.html

They also know that the average EIC return is big. Big enough that the taxpayer isn't going to notice an extra $200 in fees. I was a preparer at Block my first year in taxes (and that's one of the major reasons I didn't go back for a second.) The downside is that if someone barely qualifies for credit the fees are more than the tax benefit. I had one return where the 8880 created the return to flip from a 1040-EZ to a 1040-A which increased price and then the 8880 was being charged for. He was getting a $4 saver's credit. Prices more than doubled on that return. I think we ended up lying about him being a student or something in order to trick the system into not giving him the credit.

2. File 1040X, list spouse name first, add his info. Assuming the spouse is willing to file MFJ, as Wayne was saying.

Almost any number that starts with a 9. Technically the middle two numbers would need to be in the range of 70-88. I don't think that's it though. Following the worksheet in IRS Form 1040 instructions, step 2 indicates only if filing a joint return does the spouse SSN matter. 2. "Does your tax return include a valid social security number for you and, if filing a joint return, your spouse?"

Make sure you're putting in the tax paid in US dollars.

No, all it shows, assuming legal team prevents them from doing wrong, is that it's not illegal to refuse to disclose the client list to police without a warrant. That doesn't mean they couldn't, just that they weren't forced to. I've seen local block stuff that makes me wonder if they have any idea of how to run a business. It's a miracle they've lasted this long and are as big as they are if I consider what I see and what I hear from employees as to how they run things. So I could see them doing stupid stuff unnecessarily.

Actually form instructions indicate to enter it on line 15a of page 1 as an "other deduction" not subject to 2%, instead of line 8. I wonder if that would result in the same treatment as Schedule C.

NOL's are lost at death, so the NOL does not get distributed to the beneficiaries. It's just gone. Just one of those things,... On the other hand we benefit so much from the step-up basis that it ends up being a good deal for most people. Just not those that die with unused NOLs. See Revenue Ruling 74-175.

Like the form says in bold text, "If Line 12 is equal to Line 13, STOP HERE! Do not file this return." Correct. Only if an incorrect amount of withholding is done do you need to do anything. Generally a Philadelphia city form is not required to be filed. The form is basically meant for residents and non-resident who should have the city tax withheld but did not.

NYS does tax all income for residents. If they weren't a resident of NY then it becomes useful. For example, if the taxpayer lived in New Jersey they would file a non-resident NY return and then only the amounts shown for NY would be taxable to NY. So sounds like prior accountant did it correct. http://www.tax.state.ny.us/pdf/2008/inc/it203i_2008.pdf Most states work that way. Residents taxed on everything with a credit for taxes paid to other states. Non-residents taxed only on the income sourced to that state. There are exceptions when states have reciprocal agreements and so on.

Normally with these OPM's the unrecovered balance continues to be taken by the surviving spouse. I would guess if it was taken as an itemized deduction it's all taxable. OPM has a good tool on their website to determine the amount based on date retired and ages. http://apps.opm.gov/tax_calc/index.cfm

Scares me. Per the tech response it should have been released already. At any rate it's out now. Focus to the future and not the past. :)

Hmm, is this a MFJ return where taxpayer is over 70.5 and spouse is under, and contribution is for spouse? That's a known issue w/the IRS, they had an alert about it getting fixed. As I recall it was late February they expected to be able to take those (though switching taxpayer/spouse on return would probably do it.) Or is it a single filing status? If single, it could mean they broke it more trying to fix the above. Either that or IRS has date of birth on record indicating taxpayer is over 70.5. But given the earlier screw up with 448 I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. At any rate, you can find all the updated codes in Pub 1346. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/ty08_pub_13..._attch_1_11.pdf 1345 for some reason has been neglected since 2005.

Pennsylvania - Yes! PA 1345 page 9. http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/revenue/lib...008_pa-1345.pdf Virginia - Yes! http://www.tax.virginia.gov/site.cfm?alias...ling#qualifying

It does seem strange. Perhaps even unfair, since they didn't really suffer any loss. So of course it's tax, which makes no sense and isn't fair. Pub 4492-B has this to say. Appears to me the eligible education institution can determine the amount.

Seems like I looked and found it on the IRS website back in January. The latest revision is February, but I have no idea how to tell what the last revision is. You can have multiple revisions in one year, so it's possible TaxWise had the 2008 "version 1" from IRS while ATX for some reason was waiting for IRS "version 2" or "version 3" for 2008 or ... who knows? I wish there was a way to see the prior revision of a form on the IRS website. You can look at prior years, but when forms are modified like W-7 you don't really have anyway to see what the prior revision was in order to determine what they changed.

Well if IntelliTax or CCH thought they could sell to those customers for the ATX price they wouldn't sell to TRX. But there are definitely advantages. TRX is an additional sales force and targets "bargain" customers. Basically it allowed IntelliTax, allows CCH to focus on higher value customers. It also pushes support of low volume offices onto TRX instead of CCH. The fact that some of the existing customers who were happy to pay the ATX fee will move probably won't cost enough to offset the benefits.

That would be because the IRS hasn't update their rejects yet. You can paper file it... Or hope IRS updates it soon.

It will be a shock. At the same time it'll also be a shock how much extra paper they get for the return. Going from 1 state to 4 states with the credits for taxes paid, a simple Schedule A to a Schedule A with a 2106 more complex than most Schedule C's. You wouldn't be outraged that the car dealer who sold you a corolla for $13k wants over twice as much for a fully loaded accord. I hope? It's a different product they're buying with all those extras. For the original return I probably would have done it for about $150 w/state. I consider myself cheap too, so would attribute that to different locality. To add 3 more states I'd add $150 so I'm now at $300. For the 2106, probably bill hourly for the tallying and totalling of their receipts, it likely would end up being another $100 or if it's more than an hour of work it could grow, I could see $200. So I'm now at $400-$500, and would feel just fine doing it at that price. Since my original return price was $150 and Janitor Bob charged $60 I'm charging 2.5 times as much. 400 / 2.5 = $160 500 / 2.5 = $200 So in Janitor Bob pay I'm charging $160 - $200 for the return. Of course if that $60 fed & state w/SCH A return was a discounted for friends return it would change all the numbers up against the normal price.

B) becomes a smiley face. So that line was "20( - Rent or ..." Yes, you should file an 8829. Having explained the possible consequences of last year's return being prepared wrong to the taxpayer you would leave it up to them to decide whether to do an amended return or not.

Sounds like a good deal. I wonder if they're going to make the $299 package TaxWise and the $699 package ATX. That would be promising if so.

True. I think this applies to pretty much all conversions though, not just CCH's. Any year you change software expect to spend extra time reentering and verifying return data.

Quite possibly, but if the loans are in the name of the student they are considered self-support. If the loans are in the name of the parents, then the parents would have that considered as their support. It would be better if it was all paid by scholarships.

By making the election to claim foreign income taxes paid without filing Form 1116, the foreign tax credit limitations do not apply. Those are lines 14-20 of Form 1116. So if it's being limited by something in there the election to not complete Form 1116 can create a better tax benefit.

Well, you did ask.