JohnH

Also, we didn't ask the truly relevant question. Were any of your client's contributions over $250? If not, and if the contributions were made by check or credit card, then the statement from the church isn't even necessary. Nice to have it, but it isn't necessary. And it isn't required to have a signature, facsimile or otherwise.

I agree, the wording leave a lot to be desired, especially with the grammatical error. But I think it does meet the requirements, even though I would make changes to it if I were the church administrator or treasurer.

I'm trying to find a link to a series of animated interviews with tax clients which someone posted here a year or so ago. So far I haven't been able to find them using any search terms I can think of. One talked about how they have such a simple return, and when you went to the link, there were several others in the group. Anyone remember this or have a link to it?

Kea: Thanks for the info on Open Office. But I already paid the full price. I had to get Excel up & running, and seamlessly switchable between the Mac and PC via a flash drive. And I needed it immediately. It does work great, but I sure detest all the nonsense at the top of the screen. There's enough stuff up there to write a tax program... When I get a minute, I'm going to look into the "Ribbon" that Carolbeck mentioned. I think it may be what I was hoping to find. That may help me cull the herd a little.

OK, I feel better. You really didn't act on my advice - I just happened to remind you of something you already knew. Now I can rest well tonight.

I had to buy Excel 2011 for my Mac, and I don't care for Excel 2011. I use it when creating a new spreadsheet on the Mac, but when I'm on the PC I'm back to Excel 97. I'll eventually get used to the later version, but right now it really just plasters a lot of extra fluff at the top of the screen that I have to navigate through to do some vary simple tasks. If I can find a way to streamline the icons, I'll eventually modify it to look something like 97 in order to make it truly useful.

Hey, it works! And it's easier to use than any of the later versions if you aren't doing pivot tables and fancy formatting. All the functions are exactly the same, and a formula in a cell does its job the same way no matter what version you're using. It's a SPREADSHEET for goodness sakes - looking at the current versions you'd think Microsoft is trying to design an overly fancy tax program or something else with too many bells & whistles.

Can't issued dates be manufactured as well?

Rita: You took my advice?? Without waiting for someone to verify it? I sure hope your computer doesn't act up in the next day or so - I'd be overwhelmed with guilt.

Sometimes, Excel 97 will cause my computer to hang up. Cursor won't work in any other open applications, and it does weird things in Excel itself. The only thing I know to do is the "Three-Finger Salute" (Ctrl-Alt-Del), which gets me to the Task Manager and I have to manually shut it down, then reboot. Even the shutdown takes a couple of extra steps becaue of how Excel scrambles the computer's brains. I don't bother to report it because MS just slaps my hand & says I'm using ancient software (like I didn't know that already). I'm not suggesting you actually do that in your situation, unless someone here who is more knowledgeable than I happens to step in and recommend it in your case.

I think that's the point. Having a date on the statement would help confirm that the statement was indeed on hand prior to filing the tax return. That would be helpful information two or three years from now in an audit, when memories are fuzzy.

Or she could have been in the Vanguard Total Stock Market and she would have been guaranteed to do as well as the average of the US stock market. Fees would have been pennies on the dollar ($1.70 per thousand, to be exact), and she would have been exposed to zero decision-making risk, only market risk.

I'd say the "Printed On" date is as good as, or better than, a date at the top of the statement. I've already seen two statements this year that didn't conform. With one of them it didn't matter, because he has canceled checks for all his gifts and none are over $250 (even though the grand total is in the thousands). I told him the non-conforming statement is better than nothing, but not by much. He definitely needs to keep his canceled checks in case of an audit. The other one had a couple of gifts over $250 out of a total of about 20, so I gave him a copy of the court case. I suggested that he would want the conforming statement unless he is OK with leaving the over-$250 gifts at risk. He's going to speak with the (volunteer) financial secretary this Sunday. We will see what comes of that. Meanwhile, his return is on hold.

Maybe it will turn out that the best thing for her financially is to file MFS. (Just wondering here if they are actually married. ?? )

I have the client give me the contact info for the W/C auditor. If there's an email address, I email them the info, either by filing in their form and sending them a scan, or my preparing my own worksheet. I also attach the quarterly reports and any other info they need as a part of the scan. If there's no email address on their contact info, I call and ask for their email address or fax number. For my state, most of the time they are glad to have the info emailed to them. I password protect the file and then call the auditor to give them the password. On the rare occasion when they must meet in person, I have the auditor come to my office. Either way, it's billable time, and a lot more efficient that trying to relay this info through a clueless client.

Yes, I understand. I was just commenting on the IRS - not on your point, which was a valid one.

True KC, but I think they're too busy worrying about whether tax preparers dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" on a return claiming EIC (and fining them when they don't) rather than busying themselves with this sort of stuff. I'll bet if someone sent this in to IRS, it would wind up in the trash can.

I can see where this thread is headed - now it's going to get milked for all it's worth.

I don't think IRS cares about whether you are harmed (or whether I am).

Well, they already did it with Office. Wonder why they made an exception there? (I'm thinking someone saw the handwriting on the wall). Nobody is ever happy with their market share - at least not if they want to survive.

Every time I see the title to this thread, I seem to feel an irresistible urge to start singing an Andrea Bocelli/Sarah Brightman song and mixing English & Italian.

I'm transitioning, so some things are still running on a PC. (Drake & QuickBooks, for example). But the Mac has several PC emulators, which I'm going to evaluate after tax season is over. Some are free, but I'm looking at one which costs $130 because it seems to offer the most seamless transition. I do think I need an emulator which doesn't require you to reboot. The MS Office program for Mac works exactly the same as the PC version. And I can switch flash drives from the Mac to the PC and back without taking any extra steps. So I'm already covered with Word & Excel. I don't use Power Point since Keynote is far superior to it. All in all, I wouldn't be surprised to see myself completely out of the PC market by summer, except of course for archival and legacy stuff. As time goes on, more and more software providers will find that they need to develop a Mac version or else lose a large segment of their market. I say this because the traffic is definitely flowing toward Mac, not away from it. After a month of using a Mac, I'm beginning to see why.

I agree with you, Rita. I still like Office 97 for speed and functionality of Excel. At least you don't have to click on two or three icons to do a simple task. Good grief, it's a spreadsheet! There are just too many bells & whistles on the later versions. As for Windows and associated hassles, I'm becoming more and more happy about the changeover to Mac. I think I'm going to keep moving in that direction.

In looking at the forms, I'm thinking the W2's are prepared in-house. There's nothing to identify an outside payroll provider. I'm not really into turning people or companies in, unless there's some egregious illegal act going on. I don't see where anyone is being harmed by this, even though it may not be permissible.

That is interesting. This W-2 is from a large company with thousand of employees. I'm surprised their legal dept would let this get by them unless it is permissible. It appears that the company produces the W-2's (not the tax prep company), but for some reason the company agrees to provide the tear-off.