JohnH

It won't work. Refund is lost for all years for which the SOL has run. It can't be refunded in cash or applied to the following year. Although I guess there's no harm in trying...

Either one is fine. I switched from Quickfinder to The Tax Book several years ago and have been pleased with it, with no reason to go back. I've seen and heard comments by others on this forum slamming one or the other, but for the most part none of the negative arguments either way were convincing to me. (some of them sounded like sour grapes for one reason or another) As Mike pointed out, The Tax Book has a great forum, which I personally enjoy just as I enjoy this one. I've never partcipated in the QF forum, but I imagine the QF advocates would make a simliar positive statement regarding it. I see no defensible reason to prefer one over the other in terms of quality or convenience. At the same time there's no reason to buy both. So whichever decision you make will be the best one for you. Personally I vote for The Tax Book.

Depending upon how many hours you need, the CCH webinars are very handy. I did one a few weeks back on trusts, and got my certficate for 2 hrs of CPE as soon as it was over ( after emailing them a scan of a questionnare with answers to a few key questions from the presentation). The webinar was very informative, and the workbook they emailed me ahead of time was excellent. I will keep it as a reference book. They offer a couple of webinars on variuos subjects every week, I think. The asking price is $250 for an unlimited number of participants in the room, but I found that they will readily work with you on price if you can convince thm that you are the only participant. For me, the cost was well worth the time saved. I wouldn't have left the office to drive across town to a local seminar even if I could have saved half what I paid them. After all, time is money.

In NC, the employer will contest the claim when someone quits voluntarily for the same reasons given above. If the employee quits voluntarily, they aren't entitled to unemployment compensation. They are also not entitled to u/c if they are fired for valid reasons (or in some cases they are penalized a certain number of weeks before they can begin receiving u/c). The primary purpose of u/c is to help willing workers who are laid off temporarily or permanenetly because no work is available. Unfortunately, it has come to be regarded by many as some sort of right they are entitled to regardles of the reason they are out of work, including lifestyle decisions along the lines that "I can do just about as well drawing u/c as I can by working, plus I can make a little on the side and not tell anybody". Back to the point. In the original post you said that the money doesn't come from the employer. In fact, it does come from the employer after being filtered through a government agency and several layers of bureacruacy. The employer's reseve account is the primary funding mechanism. If the employer can establish that the employee left voluntarily or was fired for valid reasons other than lack of work, then the claim is not charged to the employer's reserve account, even if the judge rules that the person is entitled to receive u/c. That is important because even a few small claims can quickly reduce the reserve account balance and cause the rate the employer pays on wages to rise dramatically for many years to come. So contesting claims can save the employer money in the long run - sometimes a lot of money. The other side of the coin is that some employers will as a matter of policy contest all claims (except for mass layoffs) because there is a strong financial incentive to get "non- charging" status on any claim. So when there is an ambiguous situation, an otherwise deservng employee might be denied or penalized. Overall, though, it's been my experience that the greatest abuse or manipulation of the system is on the claimant side. Your second sentence in the original post illustrates that point.

I usually just duplicate the prior year's return for the client, rename it "estimate", and change the relevant entries. (For this year, it's also necessary to override the MWP credit, for example) I like doing it this way because I'm reminded to look at & analyze year-over-year differences/changes when working up the current year estimates.

I have a similar concern for this client's health. I have watched her decline as this process has played out, and it's obvious that the stress of this situation is weighing heavily on her.

Even listing her as a shareholder and officer would not make her liable for corporate debt, unless she signed something accepting personal liability. Of course, now that the credit card companies are paid, she isn't going to get any of that money back so it may be irrelevant. You know, in the aftermath of the Madoff case there is some special treatment for some situations like this. I don't know if it applies in your case, but worth looking into. I have a similar client situation that came to light in 2011 so I'll be digging into it more in the coming months. I guess my frustration over the one I'm dealing with is showing through in my reaction to what you're dealing with in your client's dilemma. Mine has many of the same elements: 1) Widow being taken advantage of by someone she trusted; 2) She was embarrassed to tell her family; 3) Signing documents she didn't understand, 4) Lost a bunch of money and maybe her home before it's all over; 5) The scoundrel is probably going to get off scott free. Disgusting.

Even if it is an S corp, she would not be liable for the FTF penalty. I haven't looked at it lately, but I seem to recall that the FTF penalty for S-corps is imposed on the corporation only. So if the corp is defunct and has no assets, the penalty is uncollectible from anybody. Just hope that the guy didn't bail out on any payroll taxes, because then things can get sticky. He says he doesn't have the records - I already don't believe him. Of course, we all knew his type the minute you revealed he was having an elderly lady sign documents she didn't understand. He sounds like the type of scoundrel who doesn't know where anything is when someone else has a problem, but can move heaven and earth to come up with documentation when it's his behind on the line. I'd question everything he says, and not believe anything I can't verify through a third party. I'd be willing to bet that even if any documents show up, there will be missing signatures or forged signatures on some of them.

Taken from IRS W-2 instructions: " Terminating a business. If you terminate your business, you must provide Forms W-2 to your employees for the calendar year of termination by the due date of your final Form 941. You also must file Forms W-2 with the SSA by the last day of the month that follows the due date of your final Form 941. If filing on paper, make sure you obtain Forms W-2 and W-3 preprinted with the correct year. If e-filing, make sure your software has been updated for the current tax year. " So you're OK to wait until Jan 2012 to do it all, unless you just want to get it out of the way before the rush comes. But even if I did prepare and mail them early, I'd go ahead and prepare duplicates to have ready when most of the employees call in late January or early February to complain that they never received their W-2.

II think a very important issue is finding out what type of entity it is. If it's a corp, then it's important to know whether a Form 2553 was ever filed. That will have a HUGE impact on whether there are even any late-filing penalties due, because if the company lost money and it's a C-corp then there won't be any late filing penalties. Has anyone ever seen a home-grown corporation get the S-corp filing done correctly? I haven't. They will say they are an S-corp, but then you generally find out they filed articles of incorporation and never did anything else (oranizational meeting, by-laws, Form 2553, etc). Once they get the charter, they just assume they are an S-cop because they have a small number of shareholders. (I'd think "shareholder" implies a corporation, whereas "member" implies a Limited Liability Company. I'm not familiar with the term "Limited Liability Corporation". ) As jainen said, your first step should be to contact your Sec of State and find out what's in the public record (if anything). In many states, all you have to do is look up the info on the Sec of State's web site - no phone call required. Maybe you'll learn that nothing was ever filed, no entity really exists, and your client can demostrate that some sort of fraud was perpetrated on her.

Mine is ready, but I never file until Oct 14 or 15. I like to do a last-minute review before actually sending it in, and that it best done after everybody else's return is out the door.

Aside from the issue of whether there are K-1's required, I'd file returns in this situaiton even if no tax is due. IRS has the extension requests in their system, so a follow-up letter is likely if no returns are filed. More importantly, filing zero tax due returns will start the SOL running and they will be timely-filed. So if some sort of K-1 shows up in 2 months, 6 months, or several years from now, at the very least you would be amending a return that will not carry any FTF penalties.

Throw in a few W-2G's, a gambling diary, and a couple of cash in/cash out casino reports for extra points.

Let's see now, where did I file that last promotional email from Drake?

This program has all the markings of a shot across the bow.

Great idea. I like it. I don't care so much about the recognition, but if it will serve as a reminder to myself and others to keep contributing, then it will be a good thing. Also, my tax advisor says it is definitely deductible - he told me while he was trimming my hair yesterday. But just to be sure, I'll get a second opinion when I go for an oil change later this week. Can't be too careful in this regulatory environment.

Congratulations eric, on the additions to the family and on being busy at work. Both are blessings. Thank you for all you do for this forum - looking forward to the changes.

Do you have a check from the insurance company yet? If not, then this may play out a little differently than you are thinking. My daughter and her husband just had a reoof repalcement done due to hail damage. They have "full replacement" insurance. Here is how it went (figures are rounded): 1) They obtained a quote from a roofer for $7,000. 2) Adjuster evaluated the damage, agreed that the roof needed to be replaced due to hail damage, and approved the amount of the estimate. 3) Insurance company sent my daughter a check for $2,800 (which was the "depreciated value" of the roof) They were free to either keep the money and do nothing else, try to repair the roof, or continue with the full replacement. However, if they did not replace the roof, then any future claims would be reduced by the $2,800 already paid to them. 4) They gave the roofer the adjuster's report and paid the $2,800 to the roofer, who then replaced the roof with the agreement that the roofer would accept the remaining payment from the insurance company. 5) When the roof was replaced, my daughter signed off on the roofer's invoice and sent it to the insurance company. The insurance company will pay the remaining $4,200 to the roofer, not to my daughter. Apparently, this provision has always been in insurance policies, but insurance companies often just wrote the full check to the homeowners and forgot about it. But with their profits being depressed by claims and lower investment earnings in recent years, plus an increase in fraud & dubious claims, insurance companies are adhering closer to the strict terms of their policies now. This is based on a single experience, and others may be able to shed more light on your specific situation. However, I didn't understand how this all worked at first and I had to do some research to figure out what was happening as this process unfoled. In retrospect, it makes perfect sense.

You're right on all counts. I was simplifying with the 12% - I generally run the actual numbers for any client using this method and then adjust quarterly if needed. The 12% works quite well for many if they have a w/comp rate under 5% and a SUTA rate in the 2% range, which is what I often see with service-type businesses who have a good SUTA experience rating. Technically they are putting in slightly less than enough to cover everything in the early part of the year. However, by the time they reach mid-year and into the 3rd quarter they have maxed out SUTA and then the balance begins building up to cover the w/comp shortage from earlier in the year. The system does need a little hand holding, though. Whatever the case, I'd rather be dealing with a small shortfall when the w/comp bill comes than to be wrestling with the client over Fed Tax Deposits.

I advise anyone to set up a separate payroll account if they have more than one employee. Then, each payroll period they transfer the gross payroll, plus matching FICA/med, unemployment tax, and workers comp into the payroll account. I usually give them a "gross up" figure to apply to the gross payroll (generally around 12%) and we recheck it periodically during the year. This makes sure they always have funds on hand to pay all payroll- related expenses. It helps to isolate those funds from operating accounts and provides a better snapshot of available cash at any given time nice there aren't residual unpaid taxes inflating the balance in the operating account. I've never seen tone who used this method have any rot of problem with payroll taxes.

Most lenders will work with the prior-year's return if it can be shown that there's a valid extension in place. Of course, that won't help if there's a big difference in year-over-year income or something present on the most recent return which tips the scales regarding loan approval. I have my 2010 return on extension, and we recently processed a home loan. The lender had asked for our 2009 & 2010 returns. When I told the lender 2010 is on extension, they just told me to give them my 2008 and 2009. No further questions asked.

Has there been an attempt to get it forgiven? I've heard lots of stories of penalty forgiveness with just a simple letter, especially if the income was reported properly on the taxpayer's personal return and that was pointed out in the letter.

It may not be possible to resurrect the clients, but after years of listening to the same old recycled excuses & arguments from some new ones, I sometimes think reincarnation may be valid.

Sounds like a case could be made for Schedule C, depending upon who actually paid the Schedule C expenses. But what about potential loss of the dependent exemption on the parents' tax return? (or maybe he saved most of the money)

The roofer isn't paying for advertising - he's just adjusting his price to what the competition is doing and using the "advertising" gimmick as his excuse to the homeowner to make it look like an exchange of value. From a practical standpoint, I recommend that the roofer just discount the bill and forget about all the extra accounting. People are a lot more savvy about this nonsense than most businesspersons realize. (some are even insulted by it). If I'm wrong about this, let me know because the nxt time I have a plumbing repair done I'm going the tell the guy he has to reduce his bill to allow for the "advertising" he's getting while his truck is parked in my driveway. If he wants to know how much he "spent" during the year on these phony discounts, he should just write it on a yellow legal pad and add it up in December. Much less complicated, especially since it was money he was never going to see in the first place.