JohnH

I appreciate the validation of the EIC question, which was my primary concern. I am also intrigued by some of the issues raised concerning claiming the 15-year-old as a dependent. I accepted what the client said with respect to not being able to claim the 15-year-old but am beginning to reconsider. We ran some rough numbers and came up short, but I think I'll suggest that if he wants to provide some more info I'll check it out in more detail. It at least deserves a closer look since they are right on the edge with respect to the dependency issue. Thanks very much to everyone who took the time to provide such a wide range of perspectives & opinions.

My dentist recently retired at a fairly young age, which got me wondering how long one can expect to do the delicate type work they do effectively. It would seem to me that a dentist might need to factor into his retirement plans a high probabilty that he/she would find in necessary to quit once the eyes, hands, back, etc start to give out, possibly well before a normal retirement age. And that, in turn, would factor into what their expected earnings & retirement preparations would be, which directly impacts the fees they charge. I've known a few old dentists, but I'm not sure I'd want to see a shaky hand coming at my face with that huge needle or a high speed drill screeching full blast. So it must be important to them to think about such things, unlike we accountants and tax preparers who can just keep going until we become unbalanced.

Thanks Pacun. Since I don't efile, most EIC clients don't bother coming to me. (or don't bother me by coming - whatever) EIC makes sense to me sometimes and then at other times I lose my train of thought. In this case it's a $1,400 difference and I just wanted confirmation.

This makes some sense to me, but I'd like to get some reassurance since I don't have a lot of experience with EIC. Taxpayer receives $15K disablity income and he & his wife have $22K in W-2 earnings. They have two children - one is a student age 19 and the other child is age 15. Both children lived in the home all year. The taxpayers claim the 19-year-old student as a dependent, but did not claim the 15-year-old as a dependent because this chld receives $9K in Social Security benefits as a minor child of a disabled parent. When I check the box to "Not Claim" the 15-year-old as a dependent, ATX still calcuates the EIC based on two qualifying children. I've done a cursory check and this seems correct, but I'd like to hear from someone with more EIC experience to confirm for me that this is how the EIC works in this situation.

I'm with jainen on this one. While most of us assume that common sense would dictate that we pay additional penalties and interest assessed on the "AMOUNT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE" as a result of our errors, and our guarantees should express it in those terms, a careful reading of JH's guarantee doesn't make that distinction. The wording of their guarantee basically says that if they prepare your return and you are later assessed a penalty, they will pay it plus the interest. It doesn't make any distinction between penalties resulting from a balance due and penalties which were not calculated on the original return. I think this taxpayer is definitely due the addtional penalties & interest resulting from the error, and with a little creative pressure on JH they might be able to get them to pay the entire amount.

Lots of mine do as well. I just tell them that for a $200 fee, I can get them an extra 2 months.

Congratulations on a tough job well done. (Are you sure you charged enough? - you didn't say anything about a gasp from the client)

Tom: I did a little reading up on the service after posting the question, and there are several limitations. 1) You can only verify 10 at a time in real time, but there's no limit to the number of batches of 10 you can do. Larger batches can be submitted electronically and results obtained overnight. 2) It cannot be used to verify the number BEFORE the person is employed - only after they are on the payroll. (who came up with this one?) 3) It cannot be used for non-wage purposes. (That's reasonable, but I'd think a third party wouild want to lock the client pretty tightly into verifying the reasons for asking for verification) 4) The employer cannot take any adverse action based solely on the results obtained from SSA. Doing so can subject the employer (and maybe the third party if I'm reading it right) to anti-discrimination or labor law sanctions. At first blush, it looks like a minefield for the employer and/or the third party doing the verifications. On the other hand, if they do step up enforcement this may become a necessity. In any case I'm still looking for input/opinions.

An August 8 article in the NY Times says the Dept of Homeland Security is announcing that they are going to crack down on employers who hire people with false social security numbers. I know, I know - this is the 20th time such threats have been made by various government agencies and then nothing was done. But the political climate this time around may mean they plan to make a few examples and grab some headlines over the issue, especially with an election year coming up. Hopefully one of our clients won't get caught up in the snare. I'm sending all my clients info on the article and how to link to it, just as a precaution. Here's a link to the article - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/washingt...agewanted=print Actually I'm not opposed to enforcing the laws on the books, so this really isn't a rant about the article, but it brings to mind a question. Do any on this forum use the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) to provide this service for their clients? If so, how do you base your charges? More importantly, what type of disclaimer do you have them sign before obtaining the information for them? Or do you just direct the client to the site and leave it up to them to do their own verification? I'm posting this question in this forum and also over on the Tax Book Forum, as I'd like to hear the collective wisdom on this subject.

I think the funniest ones are those who call during tax season to let me know they are getting their info together and to let me know they will be calling back later to set up an appointment. (Maybe they're just checking to be sure I haven't died).

OldJack: Just so you know where we all stand, I originally thought you MEANT to say "giggle". Does that tell us something about you, or me?

Kea: With respect to knowing or not knowing which country your clients are from, don't you need to know that information when you prepare their TDF90-221 if they still have economic/financial ties to their country of origin?

I like Pacun's method the best. It's better to use the computer to solve a problem than to strain the brain with all that Algebra.

Another good place to look for an old monitor would be a computer repair shop. There's one near my office that sells them for $50. They would probably loan one to you if you asked, especially if you promised to bring the computer to them if it needs repair or to buy a monitor from them if you need one.

The jewelry idea is great, but don't make the mistake of trying it with a debit card. I was really embarrassed by what happened next. The weekend didn't go as planned either.

Why not treat the difference as a note payable to the other shareholder rather than APIC?

I'm glad to hear you're raising your prices. That's all the reason I need to raise mine as well. (I'm always looking for excuses to raise them anyhow - anything will do)

Kea: You may know all you need to know about this client and the entire situation may be strictly on the up & up. But is it worth the risk? You'd be well advised to heed jainen's warnings on this. I wouldn't be anywhere near this transaction and I'd advise the client to contact an attorney knowledgeable about these matters before taking any sort of action. It isn't a matter of accusing anybody of anything - it's simply accepting the realities of the world we live in today.

Many of my clients use EFTPS, but your experience is one reason I don't encourage certain of my clients to use it. For example, the client who is still posting her payroll, sales, and checkbook info in an Appleworks data base on an APPLE IIgs computer.

Thanks KC. Wnnder why they can't provide the same service at their local offices?

You are right on all points. It's also true that I'm still convinced they've crossed the line, especially since they have so much trouble finding the "Print" button when replacement forms are requested..

A person who does some part-time work for me lives near the IRS office, so last week I asked her to drop by there to pick up as many Forms 8109-B as they would hand out. She called from the security desk to say she needed my address & Fed ID number, which we both assumed was a security formality. After giving them the info, she went to the service desk and the person helping her FILLED IN the info on the 8109-B & handed it to her. She explained that she was there to get a few for my office and they told her they can only give out 8109-B forms one at a time & they must fill them in before handing them out. I know IRS wants to do everything possible to force people to use EFTPS, but this is ridiculous. Bureaucrats are frequently petty, but other times I'm convinced they don't know when they've crossed the line between silly and downright stupid

Pacun: Does your client know or have any info on who the thief was? Was the suspected thief any of the following? 1) A son or daughter 2) Any other relative 3) An in-law 4) A friend 5) A spouse or ex-spouse 6) A neighbor 7) A business associate of the client 8) A business enemy of the client

Good suggestions jainen. Maybe the wife should handle the negotiations. The fact that she doesn't speak English and already had the skills to make a fortune in the real estate business can only work in their favor. More or less like a Turkish business owner I worked for years ago. He & I would have great strategy sessions - excellent communcation and complete understanding of our negotiating postion. Then the bankers or suppliers would show up and this guy's English would go to the dogs. He would fake them out of their shoes by constantly pretending to have a different understanding of what they were saying - usually by the end of the meeting we had everything we set out to get and a few extra concessions as well. The first time this happened I looked around to see if he had been replaced by a twin brother who just flew in from Ankara. After a few of these meetings I realized his Jekyl & Hyde command of the English language was a great negotiating ploy, and a very successful one.

Just for the record, I am another one who agrees with jainen & Mike concerning the standard deduction. It also makes for interesting conversation when trying to explain that the home mortgage & property tax deductions are not worth nearly as much as is often claimed for many itemizers.