JohnH

I checked the returns I've already filed, none of which are eligible for the RRC, and I noticed that the RRC line is blank. According to the memo, even the blank space will hold up the processing while they check it out. That's odd, since we aren't required to enter zeros on other lines which don't apply. These are paper-filed returns, so a delay of a day or two won't matter that much to them. But just to be on the safe side I guess I'll start entering the zero. (Wonder if the master can be modified to automatically enter a zero unless it's overridden).

My pet peeve is still the client (actually a couple of them), who will sit down and proceed to hand me their paperwork one piece at a time: "Here's my w-2, and here's my wife's w-2, and here's my mortgage statement, and here's the interest from the credit union (is that all the interest I made last year?), and here's my goodwill receipt, and here's my...". I'm still trying to figure out the best respose - somebody help me out here: 1) "Wow, so that's what a w-2 form looks like! Thanks for pointing it out to me." 2) "Don't you want to read me all the numbers before handing me the papers?" 3) "Z-Z-Z-Z Oh, sorry I dozed off there for a minute" 4) "Gimme that #$%$* pile of forms and sit there quietly! If I have any questions I'll ask you!"

I just now tried it and it worked fine. I'm not preparing a tax return or anything - just wanted to see if it would work using my own information. Of course, that probably means somebody further down in the queue got an error message because I was taking up bandwidth. If so, I offer my apology.

I agree with Terry. Most subs won't notice the filing date, and the critical thing is getting the government copies in on time anyhow.

I remember them all - as a teenager I even worked for a while delivering milk in the glass bottles. We'd start about 4 am and ride along standing in the doorway of the truck - had to learn the art of jumping off while the truck was still n motion and not dropping a metal carrier holding 4 bottles of milk. This was so my co-worker could jump off at the next couple of houses, and the driver would then stop the truck & deliver his 4 bottles. We'd then run to catch up with the truck before the driver got back in and off we'd go again to the next delivery point. Whenever someone mentions the "good old days" I recall a story my father-in-law would tell. Sam would describe a big two-story house they lived in that only had a free-standing coal heater and 3-4 fireplaces. In the bathroom was one of those porcelain bathtubs that stood on curved decorative legs and had two 4-prong fancy handles for hot & cold water. One really cold morning he got up, fired up the coal heater, and went into the bathroom only to find that the pipes had frozen all the way inside the house and those two fancy handles had popped off & were lying in the bathtub. Said he almost broke into tears when he realized what had happened. As Sam sat in his modern brick home with central heat & air, he'd finish the story by saying "Whenever somebody starts yapping about the 'good old days', I just remember standing there shivering in my nightshirt staring at those two #@#&** handles lying in that bathtub."

They're going to penalize him for 2007 anyhow, so why not just send a check with the 944?

If any part of the fee can be identified as property taxes, then she may have a deduction for that portion, but if the prior preparer deducted it then he just didn't know what he was doing.

I guess my timing was a little off. I thought it would take hours, but instead it's minutes. Or, as a radio talk show host just stated: "Old Tom flounced out so fast his driver was still in the men's room!"

Interesting twist in the Daschle situation today. He may be forced to withdraw over $950, and Nancy Killefer is the sacrifical lamb. The most recent story is that Nancy Killerfer is going to withdraw her nomination as Chief Performance Officer because she failed to pay $298 in unemployment tax (plus $652 in P&I). Compared to what we've already seen with Geithner & Dashle, her $950 is a drop in the bucket, yet she's withdrawing? She just became the leverage to move Daschle off the front pages. I don't think the Obama people have the guts to ask Daschle to withdraw, and Daschle doesn't know to do the right thing simply because he doesn't have enough integrity to know what the right thing is. That's something that happens often with politicians. So in the next few hours someone is going to sit down with Daschle and says something to the effect that "Look, Nancy withdrew over a $950 honest error, and we've already fallen on our sword for Geithner, so you need to take your name out of consideration for the good of the party."

I have to hand it to The Sun for the best newspaper headline of the day. In reporting the incident in which a protester threw a shoe at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on his final day in Britain yesterday, the British tabloid called The Sun ran a headline which read "Flew Man's Shoe". Those Brits just have a way with words, don't they?

True, but you can look at most sausage and pretty much determine what went into the product when it was being made (if you care to do so). Not so with most legislation - by intention it's a great mystery.

Snow cream is tasty - just don't make it with any of that yellow snow.

They're self-employed (if they want to keep working). I guess they didn't notice that no tax was being withheld on their earnings and didn't know there must be SOME sort of tax that needed to be paid on their income. If they don't care if they get fired and/or never work there again, they can always try an end run with Form 8919 & SS-8, which might save them about 7% (Half the SocSec/SE tax).

The two things nobody wants to see being made are sausage and laws Nobody knows what's going to be in the final legislation, and you'd be making a mistake to speculate. Tell them to keep their eye on the news reports just like you are doing.

jainen said it perfectly.

I don't like the potential liability aspect of it all. If I prepared one, I'd have the client sign lots of paperwork clarifying that they understand the payback requirements and then I'd have to plan to keep all that CYA stuff around for 15-17 years, even if they eventually go somewhere else to get their tax return prepared in future years. If the repayment provisions stay in place, then there are going to be taxpayers who sell their homes or convert them to rentals in the next 4-8-10-12 years and they will conveniently "forget" that they were supposed to pay the remaining balance back. Then a couple of years out when IRS tags them, they'll run for cover by claiming the original preparer never told them about this. When that happens, the preparer will regret it if they don't have all the documentation on hand. Even then it will be a hassle. Anyone who has dealt with the Mortgage Credit Certificates probably knows what I'm talking about. And at least with the MCC's, the taxpayer had to sign paperwork with the lender and the government acknowledging the repayment requirements. With this credit, all the notification responsiblity lies with the tax preparer, who had better have their bases well covered. I'm going to leave that chore to others - I'm just not interested.

If they've already bought a house within the time limits or if they are planning to buy one, then they certainly should take the credit on their return. But if they are thinking about buying just to ge tthe credit, then they should forget it. I'd advise anyone who is eligible for the credit to claim it, and I'll also send them to HRB or JH to get the return filed because I don't intend to put my name on any return claiming the credit. (And I have already given that very advice to one client). Nobody can predict whether future legislation will make it a true credit with no repayment requirement, and if so whether the repayment will be fogiven, but the only advice I'd give them is "there's no way to know what Congress might do."

I'm in Charlotte, NC. 1) James Taylor ("In My Mind I'm Goin' to Carolina") - Guess that would apply to the entire state 2) NASCAR (I'm not a fan, but it amuses me how the local politicians try to downplay its importance because they consider it a redneck sport) 3) Major banking center (although that distinction is rapidly eroding)

It's a good idea to update frequently, especially this time of year. I updated about 11:00 pm last night, then just now updated again and there were a few more forms in this update.

Prior to Aug 11, 1993, goodwill could only be amortized if a useful life could be determined, but the rules changed that year to allow for 15-year amortization under Sec 197. I'm trying to determine whether there was an option once the new rule went into effect. I'm looking at a situation in which the previous preparer simply booked goodwill for a business purchased in Nov 1993 and left it on the balance sheet as an "Other Asset" with no amortization taken. The business closed in 2007 and the return hasn't yet been filed. My question is, was the 15-year amortization mandatory? It matters because I now need to know if only the goodwill for 2 years can be written off in 2007 or if the entire original amount can be written off in 2007. (I probably should know this, but so far I'm drawing a blank)

With all required tax deposits having been paid on time, I think you have until Feb 10 (see page 2 of the following) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i941.pdf

I always tell them I don't agree with it being taxable, but given that the rules are what they are, they should be grateful they have enough income that their SocSec IS taxable. There are plenty of people who don't have that "problem" and they'd gladly trade places if given the chance.

I think this would also be a good time to remind everyone to contribute. (Eric is famous for not asking, but we need to keep in mind that it costs money to keep this forum up & running. In order to put my money where my mouth is, I just made another donation. We like to talk about how valuable our own time is - especially at this time of year - and we need to also acknowledge that his time is valuable as well.)

I was setting up a batch of 1099 forms (about 250 +) to transfer from QuickBooks into ATX today and hit a snag when I discovered the 1099 conversion printer for QB files wasn't available. I called ATX tech support, got right in to the help desk, and the young lady on the phone took me through the process to install it in about 10 minutes. She was very helpful and methodical - we never had to backtrack a single step. She also stayed on the line until I finished the conversion and loaded the file into ATX. All in all a very positive tech support experience. I know several of you have related some bad tech support experiences and I just wanted to mention that there is another side.

I always report it on the 941 and 940 in gross wages, but not in SocSec/FICA. The last thing I do before sending out payroll reports is to verify that the sum of Box 1 of the W-2 forms agrees with the sum of Line 2 of the 941 forms filed for the year, and that that figure appears on line 3 of the 940. ( I also verify that the sum of the W-2 Withholding, SocSec, and Medicare totals proof back to the corresponding lines on the 941's filed for the year.)