JohnH

I frequently use my iPhone for depositing checks. Hadn't really given much thought to security problems with it, but I think I'll look into that.

After seeing this article I decided to give myself a big raise. But my banker overruled it - something about there not being enough money in their bank to cash my check...

Bookeepers and accountants will always be around. At least until they become unbalanced.

This is such a sad situation. I had this exact situation with a family member about 4 years ago. Their son, who seemed healthy and active, died suddenly at age 26. The word of his death came as they were traveling to a family get-together. He was single, with no assets except for a cheap car, and he owed a couple of general creditors plus some taxes because he had been working as an Independent Contractor. There was a small life insurance policy, which wasn't even enough to cover the funeral costs. A creditor somehow found out about the life insurance policy (maybe one of the distraught parents told them about it at some point in an effort to be honest). The creditor made them miserable for a while, even trying to guilt them into paying by claiming it would spoil the son's reputation & memory to leave an unpaid debt. Really despicable stuff under the circumstances, IMO. There wasn't enough money involved to consult a lawyer, and I wasn't sure of the legal ramifications. But I told them if I were in their situation I would personally stonewall the creditors and IRS under these circumstances. Every time we would see one another at a family function, they would tell me about the latest contact by IRS or a creditor, repeatedly asking if they might get into personal trouble. It was such a strained situation; I never ventured to ask about the latest development because it would be for them like reliving the whole episode surrounding his death. Yet they would feel compelled to bring it up because they needed some reassurance that what they were doing was OK, both legally and morally. You are definitely helping your friend at a time when there is very little anyone can do to ease her pain.

I think we are onto something here. Tax preparation should be handled by tax preparers, and public assistance should be handled by public-employee social workers. Everybody being able to just do their job would probably increase efficiency and put the responsibility where it belongs.

Why don't they dispense with all the paperwork on the tax return and require the taxpayer to come in and have a sit-down with someone whose job it is to handle this sort of matter? Someone who has the training and qualifications to evaluate whether their income & family situation justify receiving a check from the government. Like perhaps a social worker.

Thanks Catherine. Now the universe is back in balance.

I was waiting for someone to ding me for a mixed metaphor.

H-m-m. I would have thought that the use of the words "might", 'if, "could", and the general context of the conversation make it clear that this is speculative. Guess I need to hone up on my writing skills,. Or I could ignore the noise and not waste time trying to reduce all my thoughts to the lowest common denominator.

It might be easier than it first appears if they just go for the low-hanging fruit. They know when the taxpayerr reaches 70, and they have the 5498's each year. So beginnning at 71, the computer could just generate a CP notice for anyone who doesn't report a distribution, leaving it up to the taxpayer to prove there is basis or that it's a Roth. More or less how they handle 1099-B presently. There will be plenty of people who will just pay up and hope the problem goes away.

Well bless your heart.

I don't fit either the young or the gal classification, but I'm convinced that the southern accent has been very helpful at times when speaking with someone at the IRS.

All they all IRA accounts, or are there any 401(k) accounts or inherited IRA's in the mix?

Rita: I also want to give credit where credit is due. You're more tolerant than I am.

The plot thickens. A man in Montana who practices polygamy applied for a marriage license to enable him to legally marry one of his "sister wives". So if that additional bit of idiocy flies, then why not get a license for the 3rd, 4th, and so on? Eventually the "spouse" line could just say "see attached statement", with a listing of everyone who legally qualifies as a spouse. The possiblities are endless.

All true, but oddball circumstances & outliers won't matter if IRS decides to hold you responsible for verifying marital status. You'll either do the due diligence they require, or expose yourself to penalties if you don't . Exactly like they are already doing with the EIC. And you will find yourself deciding if there may be returns you simply don't want to prepare because of the additional penalty risks (exactly like I and many others are already doing with EIC). The difference will be that you could then find yourself on the wrong side of a discrimination lawsuit when it comes to marital status. So in the end, you will probably have to adopt a policy that you won't complete a return for anyone if the client can't provide acceptable proof of their maritual status, no matter whether it is opposite sex or any of the other definitions beginning to come down the pike.

Right now, the client's signature on the organizer and/or the engagament letter is sufficient. Don't count on that always being the case in the future.

Right now I take your word for it. But let's fast forward to 2016 and think about a hypthetical . ->> Sorry, I can't take your word for it any more. IRS told me that beginning this year I must verify marital status for all clients. I need to see your marriage license and you need to sign this statement for my records that you haven't divorced since that date. I can't just limit this due diligence to same sex couples, or even just new clients, because that would be discrimination. So I have to do this for every client, even though I've known you for years - maybe even attended your wedding. Otherwise I'm subject to a $500 fine for each failure. (or substitute whatever fine you think is likely. The EIC due diligence requirments might give you an idea of how far they feel they can go). <<- IRS has already done a very good job of making tax preparers unpaid data entry clerks. I see lots of preparers who ae very proud of their efficiency at this clerical task. IRS has made the preparer responsible for getting the returns filed on time - another clerical task having nothing to do with tax prpearation skills. They've begun to make preparers unpaid auditors, at least for EIC. So why woudl they not just keep tightening the noose? They have everything to gain and nothing to lose. You, on the other hand...

IRS won't need to go to those lengths. All they need to do is devise a penalty to assess against the preparer for failing to follow due diligence in verifying marital status. That solves their problem nicely.

I never say "emolument" when I can say "compensation." That's because I eschew obfuscation.

I'm getting off the bus in a couple of years, so I'm still content to be riding in the back for now. It's reassuring to know that all our data is safely in the hands of several government agencies doing their utmost to protect our privacy. Meanwhile, I'll just keep submitting those hardship exemptions so I can continue paper filing. If anyone gets my clients' data, they are just going to have to steal it from the government.

Absolutely!

I think if you can document that a hairstylist is present, you can pay for the lunch and get CE credit for the meeting.

Well, at least you can tell him he should be relieved to know we massaged the idea from every vantage point.

This is an interesting line of thought. Can one deduct a desk and chair (and possibly other admin assets) if they do not claim a home office deduction? This assumes of course that the asset is used exclusively for business.