JohnH

You could always give them the option to pay you an extra $500 fee for each return you prepare for them, to be returned after the SOL has expired for each said return. The eventual refund would need to be reduced by some sort of fee for maintaining the extra record keeping, of course. . :)

I tell them that it the current year's return is identical to last year, aside from the numbers being different, then their fee will be $xxx. But I qualify that by saying that when i get their info if I see anything different that they forgot to tell me about or that I forgot to ask, I'll let them know before beginning work on the return. That has happened a few times over the years, and in each case the client agreed with me. From everything you've posted, I think your relationships with your clients are similar to mine. I may be wrong, but I suspect your clients would be much more amenable to price increases than you imagine. But as Rich said, and he said it well, their reaction is secondary to what is in your best business interests. (Judy: Nice of you to move the thread. I was aware we were digressing far from the original subject but wasn't thinking of how to handle it. Your solution is good.)

This conversation got me thinking about the yeaar-end client letter, so I looked up last year''s letter to refresh my memory. Here's the last paragraph from about 3 years running, which I more or less borrowed from someone else and massaged a little, (so i can't claim originality). If anyone cares to comment on improvements, I'm open to suggestions. "Fees & charges for basic tax preparation will again increase an average of 6% - 8% this year. Also, some schedules involving more complex tax matters may incur additional charges exceeding the general increase. The type of items most affected are returns reporting rental income, returns reporting multiple transactions involving the sale of stocks or mutual fund investments as noted in the previous paragraph, and returns reporting income from self-employment. I encourage you to ask for an estimate if you have any concerns about what it will cost to complete your return."

I'll make another suggestion about this. Mention a fee increase every year in the client letter. . If you say something to the effect that "fees are increasing 2-7%, with the average being about 4%" for example, then you maintain flexibility while being able to make adjustments for family relationships, etc. I've heard some preparers argue that clients will add up the cumulative increases mentioned each year and complain, but I've never had that happen. (Maybe the chronic complainers left in the second year . )

There are lots of reasons to postpone raising our fees for long term clients. But when you finally do it, the good ones will usually tell you they understand. Some will even tell you they wondered why you waited so long to do it. These are people who really appreciate your efforts and have a sense of fairness. If any gripe and leave, you're better off without them because they weren't nearly as desirable clients as they appeared. And the end result should be that you are earning more money while doing less work. I so think it's best to announce the fee increase in the client letter, rather than trying to introduce it when the info comes in or when you present the bill. In the latter two cases you're explaining and maybe tending toward apologizing. In the former case you're giving them a heads up, so the expectation has already been set. I also think the fee increase should be mentioned in the client letter without comment, other than to say "if you have any questions about the fees, be sure to ask me". Most will intuitively understand. If anyone needs an explanation, or if theirs is a situation which warrants an exception to the fee increase, you can address it one-on-one.

I won't post any of my autocorrect mishaps here, but just let me say I could have given one or two of those a run for the money in days past. I've learned to ALWAYS double-check texts before hitting the 'send' button.

I believe part of the issue revolves around whether this benefit is provided to religious persons and "no one else". In addition to military personnel, there are other groups of people who receive preferntial tax treatment for housing (and meals) provided for the convenience of the employer. At first blush, it appears that this judge's decision springs largely from an anti-religious bias, but she isn't alone in that regard. I've observed the same thing among some tax preparers on accounting/tax forums as well. I've even suggested on a couple of occasions that based upon their extreme biases against clergy, some tax preparers should refuse to prepare returns for this group of clientele. It's silly of her to focus on this issue, since as you pointd out, there are many instances in which the tax code delliberately or indirectly favors one group of people over another. One simple example would be the favorable treatment of long term capital gains & qualifying dividends. There are others which are much more on point.

It is based in the "convenience of the employer" doctrine. Similar to members of the military who must reside near military bases, ministers often find it necessary to live in areas they might not otherwise choose to live, due to the location of the churches they serve. Many ministerrs have little choice in the church assignment, especially those serving in church organizations which use a "connectional" system for assigning ministers to the churches chosen by their administrative hierarchy. Historicallly, the problem arose because they had little choice in determining the location of the housing (since a parsonage or manse was usually in close proximity to the church). Another argument in its favor had to do with the low compensation most ministers are paid in relation to other professionals of similiar education & responsibilities. This fact is often overlooked because we as tax professionals tend to interact more often with the higher-paid clergy who have a need for tax advice and can afford to pay for it. We don't see the much larger population whose income is so low that there is very little tax planning to be done and many of them don't realize any significant tax benefit even from the H&U allowance, since their only tax liability is S/E tax. Furthermore, those who still minister in churches which provide parsonages never derive the benefits of building any equity in a home, which for many people is their only significant asset. This same issue still exists for members of the military as well. As many churches moved away from the "parsonage" model, the H&U exclusion was extended to those ministers who are not provided a parsonage. That is a different issue, but many of them still find that the decision about where to live can be limited by the necessity to be in close proximity to their church. Although the overall situation is different from the parsonage model, the only way to treat these situations differently would be by having the IRS delve into the details of each minister's arrangement with their particular congregation, denomination, etc. Also, keep in mind that even though we discuss this in terms of "ministers", "churches", "denominations", etc, the H&U allowance extends to clergy of all religious faiths, so trying to differentiate among these various faiths and how they compensate their clergy could turn into a huge problem in and of itself. Here's a pretty good article (which I acknowledge is pro-housing allowance): http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/09/06/in-defense-of-special-tax-treatment-for-clergy/

I think it's a good idea to include the 'Foreign Accounts' question on the engagement letter, just before the signature lines. Especiallly since gettting the correct answer to this question is potentilly more important even than getting paid for the return, given the huge penalties involved.

You're right. The cost of retaining an existing good customer is pennies when compared to the cost of gaining new customers of unknown loyalty & reliability. Even when you gain new customers, there is still the aggravation of figuring out whether they are worth keeping. ETA - The above comment by John and those replies below have been moved here from another thread because these points are important and should have their own topic and title. - Judy

Wonder what would have been the result if they had offered a simple, straightforward discount policy across the board, treating everyone equally. Perhaps something along the lines of 1% for every year you've been a customer, plus 1% for every month you renew early, with a maximum discount of 10% (or 8%, or 12% - whatever they felt they could live with). Retention would probably have been higher and all customers would have known they were on a level playing field. Long-term customers would feel that their loyalty was being rewarded, shorter-term customers would still get some recognition, and everyone would have control over some aspect of their discount by taking the early renewal. Discounts are a shell game, because you cant discount below your target price and stay in business very long. So all companies set their prices taking into account the discounts they know they are going to have to offer to some customers, while being unfair to those who are too timid to ask and thus feel treated unfairly. A discount policy based on loyalty, coupled with a second appreciation for their being willing to commit early and part with their money, makes sense to anyone and empowers the customer. That last part (empowering the customer) is the most important thing you can do in business.

It does create a trust issue. Does it make you wonder if maybe they gave a better deal to others, under the condition that they not post it online?

I was in class (high school sophomore). CS Lewis died on that same day in England, but it was hardly mentioned in the news anywhere.

Don't you just love it when that occasional client thinks they're going to get the entire amount back in tax refunds when they lose money in a business venture? But that same person would never assume they have to pay the entire profit in taxes if the business made money.

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." Jacques Chirac, President of France. "As far as France is concerned, you're right." Rush Limbaugh

L o o k s l i k eeveryt hing is working fine on my s c r e e n.

Now THAT'S what I call a good collections policy.

I keep a hammer in the laundry room.

H-m-m. Hadn't thought of that. I think I'l buy my wife a CFL bulb for our laundry room.

You could follow this recent direction from IRS: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Warns-of-Pervasive-Telephone-Scam

I've scheduled about 5 for somebody else. I sent each of them an email notifying them that I'll have to file an extension if they want their return done by me next year - they all declined.

In looking back at my last post, that question I asked can be read with an unintended tone. "Your computer isn't too much for you, is it?" was meant to be rhetorical, but it looks a little snarky on the screen. My intent was just to suggest that using your smart phone is essentially the same thing as using you computer, which I 'm sure you can do to whatever degree of proficiency suits your purposes.

Maybe that's because you thought it was a phone. Actually, a smart phone is a sophisticated, highly portable computer which just happens to have telephone capabilities. Your computer isn't too much for you, is it?

Yes, it does appear to be a paradox, doesn't it? But I still contend that my disdain for e-flinging isn't a matter of being old-fashioned. And yes, I freely admit to being a gadget guy - always have been. Anyhow, take a look at how tech-savy Joel is. Compared to him, I'm still in electronics kindergarten - and he has quite a few years on me.

If one of those CFL bulbs got broken over your laundry, I think the EPA would want you to destroy all the clothes the fragments fell upon. http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl I've installed a few LED bulbs in my house and I like them much better than CFL's. LED's are more directional, but they are great in table lamps and can light fixtures. Prices still need to come down some more to make them truly economical, but I think that will come about over time.