Tax Bird

Thanks KC. I will resist.

Yes and then some. The money was taken from the account via a cashier's check payable to him. No rental agreement - got real crabby when I asked about it. Made up some gobbledy gook about why he had to pay that much rent for a discontinued business with no operations or assets. No fee, Tom. I ain't touchin' dis one.

Yes

No. The business has had no assets or operations since 2004. The only reason it was held open was pending resolution of the lawsuit.

I see what you're saying. Except in this case, the subtext could be something along the lines of "I am not capable (of assisting you in your embezzlement)" or "I'm not capable (of aiding an abetting a crime)" or "I'm not capable (of professional suicide)". Nonetheless, I will defer to you on this matter and subdue my more devilish side. Thanks again!

*Ugh!* That's what I thought...which is why I'm in on a non-tax season Saturday. I've got about 12 legal size boxes of this man's crap to inventory. Do you think the letter should be sent registered or is email sufficient? On the few occasions I've done this in the past, I've done it by email. Seems a lot less confrontational somehow. And when you say "explain verbally that you feel..." are you saying this shouldn't go in the letter? Thanks Joel! Your advise is very much appreciated.

Those are good rules of thumb. Thanks Tom.

In anticipation of ridding myself of a troublesome client, (see thread regarding 'Client BS'), do any of you obtain any kind of receipt? I'm thinking I would make a checklist of all files boxes returned to the client and have them sign off when the boxes get handed over. I'm thinking of just listing the box label but was wondering if specific file contents should be referenced as well. Specific file references don't strike me as very practical but it may be worth it if any of you have encountered problems where clients come back years later saying they didn't get all their docs. Any thoughts on this? I'd be interested in your thoughts on how you've done this is the past.

You know, at this point, this thing feels so 'icky' that I don't want my name associated with it at all. AND I don't want to do the 'spooky' bookkeeping either becasue I suspect the client will use it to set up some other unsuspecting soul ('the bookkeeping was done by a CPA - they have all the records'). I know what you mean, though. I did try to think of some way to get paid. But the only way I get paid in this scenario is to go along. Then it become the choice between my fee and my livelihood. For that reason, I think I'll take my lumps and dump him. I'll still send statements - weekly for years if I need to. Thanks RoyDale.

I have a client, LLC, for whom 2007 is the final year. I've done the bookkeeping and tax returns since 2001. For whatever reason, in this final year, the LLC came into a lot of money (won a lawsuit) but has not been 'operational' since 2004. Early in the year (2007), after the receipt of the lawsuit proceeds, two of the three LLC members received distributions. The third member did not. In the course of doing the bank rec's I came across transactions that I couldn't identify (>$200K in total). That was a month ago. Client calls today and tells me verbally what they are. He has no invoices or receipts. They do not make sense. (For example, rent expense of $100K in Dec '07 - the final month ever. $100K in rent for a business with no assets and no operations). Since I am sure he is BSing and that this chicanery will trigger an audit, I am inclined to decline doing the tax return. Unfortunately, I have unpaid time on the bookkeeping so far which, while I hope I get paid, I doubt I will once I tell him I won't be doing the tax return. Since I am appalled and a bit PO'd at the moment, I need to simmer down a bit before I send the 'kiss of death' email. Any suggestions on content? I want to keep it short and sweet. Something to the effect 'Dear BSer, After our conversation today, I am hereby declining any further work for BS, LLC.' I know I need to say more than that but that's all I can muster of a professional tone at the moment. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

The problem will come if you have to compress and then restore to a *new* hard drive. Like you, I could easliy access my files when my old hard drive worked. I thought that was the extent of the restore test. It isn't. The real test is seeing how it behaves on a *new* hard drive. In any case, you should be fine as long as you don't use compression. I would recommend that you check your settings just in case; compression is the default (and compression set to zero does not mean no compression, by the way).

This was actually one the first solutions I tried (that poster is cowboy somebody, right?) This 'solution' only works if compression is set to zero. Didn't work for me.

I just had a hard drive failure. I was using Iomega's REV drive for backup. Seems the crooks rigged the software so that if you use compression in your backups (default setting, by the way) you cannot restore your data to a new hard drive. Nowhere in their documentation do they mention this as an issue or warn of it in any way. The only way to get your data back is to submit to their data recovery service for $2,000 per cartridge. I have two cartridges. Needless to say, I'll not be taking those crooks up on their offer to rob me. Thankfully I'm a paranoid so-in-so and I have two other sources of backup from which I was able to restore. As for my in house backup solution, I have switched to Western Digital's "My Book" and like it just fine - even got .5T for less than I paid for my Iomega thing.

It was accepted!!! Just so you know.

Leave it to me to once again be the accidental pioneer. Seems to be a life theme I can't quite shake. In any case, I'll monitor it and keep you all posted.

Should I expect it to be rejected then and consequently have to paper file it?

Ok. So I finally get my tax return done (today) and I e-file it. After transmitting, I read the deadline notice that says something to the effect that new returns should not be submitted after 10/15. I'm going to wait and see what happens but I was wondering if anyone knew why you couldn't transmit new returns after the 15th. The postmark would rightfully show them as late so why should this be an issue?

Thanks Old Jack! Since posting, I did look at basis again and figured out where I goofed. I'll sure be glad when I finish the final '07 return.

Perhaps I'm confusing S-Corp rules with partnership rules ...or perhaps just because it's Friday. I have ONE partnership client which is the bane of my existence every year. Facts: In 2004 TP suffered a casualty loss due to a natural disaster. In 2005 TP sold it's assets (capital a/c's went negative - remaining liab's at end of the year enough to cover negative capital a/cs plus a little bit more ) In 2006 TP received some unexpected insurance proceeds (postponed gain). TP also incurred some expenses and paid some of the old liabilities causing neg cap a/c's to exceed basis. TP also distributed some $$ to members (small) In 2007 TP unexpectedly won its bad faith lawsuit against its insurance company (at this point TP expects 2007 to be final year if suitable replacement isn't found). I'm working on the '06 now. Do I have some cap gain for the amounts that exceed basis (Inside basis is less than outside basis)? Or because it's a small amount can I just wrap it all up next year with the final TR (when all old liabilities will be wiped out all together)? Also I was wondering, can partners with negative basis deduct current year losses? I know in an S-Corp you can't until basis is restored. However, is it the case with partnerships? I didn't think you could, 'but the software is allowing it' which causes me to pause. I would greatly appreciate anyone's input on the matter. Thank you in advance.

Starting on B-8 it says, in part "...The purpose of this plan shall be to provide for coverage under the unemployment compensation law of one State of services performed by an individual for a single employing unit..." So it WAS you! Why didn't you read my mind then? Humph!

p. B-8 is where the IRCA begins. Sorry about that! I could've sworn we worked together on the Jackie Stallone Psychic hotline. Maybe it was another 'OldJack'.

Ok. the doc I found on the DOL contains all interstate agreements, including the IRCA. If I did this right, you should find the doc attached. DOL_InterState_Agreements.pdf

Woo Hoo! I found a lovely document on the US DOL website the Interstate Reciprocal Coverage Agreement to which all States have signed except MN. The DOL website is so handy, I will post the entire link! http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/laws.asp Eh! But I can't access the document without a password. Poop! If I find a way to get the complete doc I'll post it here. In the meantime, the agreement allows for payment of UI into only one State per employee. In other words, the wages earned in one State *do* count for wages earned in another State so that they do not have to reach each wage base individually in each State. Halleluia! (Cue the choir...)

This is what I suspected. So for the employer who has jobs in multiple States, conceivably they will pay much more in UI than if they just stayed put in one State. Meaning, the U.I ceiling would never be reached with one State but will be exceeded cumulatively when combined. *Ugh* I hope I'm wrong.

Off the top of my head, I would show it in the return as a theft (I think the casualty form is for casualty & theft). This assumes that the TP reported it to the authorities and has the documentation to substantiate the theft and subsequent investigation.