JohnH

Looks like 2010 will be the year for another "across the board"increase in tax prep fees.

How about this response? "Well, Mark, you should know that IRS has the phones of all tax preparers tapped so they already know you're trying to get this agent in trouble. How many calls like this have you made before you called me?"

Sounds like that CO alarm might give you a pretty good reason to request a penalty abatement as well. Did the fire department come out when the alarm sounded? A copy of their call report would be great documentation for a "boo-hoo letter". Also, mind if I use that excuse sometime in the future? It opens up all sorts of excuse opportunities...

Looks like I have a couple of S corps who will be paying the penalty - $89/month for each shareholder. All one can do is tell them...

Or maybe they're trying to be intentionally confusing. Next thing you know they'll be having us order the forms from a Mitsubishi Motorway address in Japan. Anything to force people to migrate over to EFTPS.

Gene: I think that should be "1201 N. Mitsubishi Motorway". (Not saying that you made an error - I think the Post Office may have made one in what they sent back to you. Those yellow labels are notoriously inaccurate)

I don't take advantage of the early bird discounts because I don't see any real value there - the savings is outwieghed by the business risk. I understand the importance of saving money, but it seems to me that the flexibility to make a last-minute change of vendor is more important than saving less than the fee for a single tax return. One never knows when the current vendor will make a last-minute change that makes you decide it's time to move on. If you've already committed, that decision becomes much more difficult. I wait until the last minute to renew and I also continually evaluate alternatives, usually by getting a demo from competitors and running one or two exension returns on it. As for the price increase, well it is what it is. When a product is priced considerably below market and the company is acquired, the acquiring company looks to price increases as their chief means of funding the acquisition. (They issue the obligatory nonsense about how nothing is going to change and various other other marketing hype, but the reality is quite different where the actual plans are being made by management) . Whereas for many of us the decision to go to ATX in the past was practically a no-briainer, CCH is now slowly putting us in the position of having to cotinually evaluate them vs competitors on the basis of cost vs benefits. That takes us back to point # 1 above. For me, ATX is still winnning the race right now. But if they overreach by raising prices too much, cutting features too far, or reducing customer service to unacceptable levels, it will be time to move on. There is still competition out there and the gap is closing.

Taxbilly: I think the question was based on the idae that there's no need to worry about a late filing penalty if there's a loss, and that is correct since it's a C Corp (well, maybe $100 if it's over 60 days late, but that's all that's at stake) But there's always that possibility of a nasty surprise if the expected loss doesn't materialize or if a subsequent audit turns up a profit due to unallowed deductions, unreported income, etc.

I'd lean in the direction of filing based on current known info and then amending once the audit is complete. That way there can't be any rude surprises if the current year loss turns out not to be a loss after all the dust settles. Plus you get to charge for the amended return. Also, a late-filed return might weaken your agrument somewhat if you need to negotiate reduced penalties on the audit results (if any). Maybe others will offer differing views or valid reasons to wait.

A decedent's estate is an eligible shareholder of an "S" corp. So it appears that the estate is a shareholder until the shares are transferred to another eligible individual.

I just had to tell this somewhere. My 9-year-old grandson filled out his paperwork for the new school year over the weekend. He understood exactly what was needed for Name, Address, Phone, Birthdate, etc. When he came to the part that listed "Emergency Contact", he entered "911". Hard to argue with that logic...

I have 5 monitors spread among 3 computers, all of them actively in use every day.

You can also modify the Master in ATX to make the printing on the "Return Cover Sheet" in the "Client Letter" line up with the cutouts in the Tenenz Folders. It requires a little trial & error, but works very well. Instead of "Federal Tax Returns", mine just says "Income Tax Returns". I then add the company info so it prints on the cover sheet & shows through the lower cutout on the Tenenz folder, so when the return is ready for stapling I just lay the cover sheet on top and staple away. I keep a second stapler on hand for the really thick returns, and I find that up to 30-40 pages can easily be stapled with a 1/2" staple after lining them up. Once the size of the return exceeds what the hidden staple folder will hold, it's on to a pressboard binder with the bulit-in Acco Clips. It costs more, but when the return & corresponding invoice gets that big, a $5 binder is in order.

Tenenz used to be called "Tax Aid". I think that was the original name before they merged with "HG Professional Forms".

Or you could just contact Tenenz. Good prices, great service, excellent web site, rapid delivery. http://www.tenenz.com/

And now, for the dual-monitor aficionado who has everything, we introduce: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6105...-Christmas.html

Well, this helps explain why so many of my clients were extra cranky this year - I repainted my ceiling just before tax season began.

Nobody's tying to deify St Ronaldus. :)

But Mike, how's the client supposed to answer the question when they don't know what we need to hear? :)

I suppose now we're going to have to endure the shameless remarketing of "ObamaCare" by changing it to "KennedyCare". Politicians are expert at finding new ways to put lipstick on the pig, and this opportunity is just TOO tempting.. Makes me want to turn off the TV and quit reading/listening to the news.

You might want to consider adding a "hassle factor" into your bill. From what you've posted, I suspect you're likely to be seeing a lot more of this client in the coming months. And quite a bit of that time is likely to be spent explaining why it wasn't YOU who got all this hassle from the IRS started.

There's an excellent article about the healthcare system and the insurance system in the current issue of The Atlantic. It's entitled "How American Health Care Killed My Father" by David Goldhill. In the interest of full disclosure, he states early in the article that he's a Democrat, but the article is definitely not political - he isn't a hired gun attempting to promote one agenda or the other, IMO. Although I disagree with a few of his assertions here & there, I find it to be overall a comprehensive assessment of the many structural, functional, and philosophical problems with our current system. ( I especially appreciated his point that much of the health care system is so low-tech that "my dry cleaner uses a more elaborate system to track shirts than this hospital uses to track treatment.") I didn't care much for his cumbersome solution because I think it's unworkable, but that takes nothing away from his excellent description of how we got to where we are. It's a thoughtful, enlightening article and well worth the time it will take to read all 13 pages. Highly recommended for anyone wanting to gain additional insights in this problem affecting all of us.

Glad to help out. And just in case anybody is tempted to advance the idea that Barney Frank is just one person or that his deception doesn't represent the prevailing view, here are a few of his cronies clarifiying their dishonest position: http://commonsense.wbt.com/index.cfm;jsess...c665574f25554e5 Just click on the YouTube clip to get an earful.

Now there's a marketing idea. Someone should develop a "Burma Shave" app for our GPS systems.

I think true impartiality was always a pipe dream (or a scam). All information has to be edited in some form or another, and one's biases have to influence HOW the editing is done. I'd rather see the presenters on both sides admit their biases while giving us the news rather than to pretend to be unbiased when they aren't. That way I can enjoy Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, etc, then switch over to Bill O'Reilly, Shawn Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh, (insert your favorite figures on both sides here) and make a more reasoned decision about what each side is trying to tell me about what I'm seeing & hearing. (Even though I still won't know if something important has been edited out by both sides, I can gain a better perspective and maybe decide to dig a little deeper) The reporting on this particular story is beyond despicable, and should be front-page news everywhere. Wherever this story has been dealt with, I haven't yet heard anyone advance even the wildest rationale defending it. Even the Ragin Cajun Carville or Paul Begala haven't spoken out on it, and they're both capable of contorting reality to defend almost anything the left does.