JohnH

I agree. In this case, it sounds very much like greed. Unless the mother's dementia is such that moving her to a facility & unfamiliar surroundings would send her further off the deep end, destroying the only remaining connection to anything that brings a little joy into her life. There are sometimes things more important than physical comfort (and even safety) when it comes to mentally impaired people. I've seen that firsthand with a couple of relatives and had to accept the associated risks while the situation played itself out a little more. But given the totality of this person's worldview as Ms TK has presented it, I somewhat doubt that what's best for mom has entered the equation.

Gail's situation is a perfect example of what we are talking about. I agree completely with her expectations regarding her parents and also the arrangement with her husband's grandmother. My reason for pursing this a little is primarily because any of us might be asked to weigh on on a decision of this type with clients. I've had several conversations about this very issue with clients because some of my client base it getting older (as am I), and they bring up this sort of thing from time-to-time. If we're inclined to share an opinion, it should be reasoned and rational.

OK. Got it. Given the overall behavior of Ms TK's friend, I understand that. I was just speculating about the issue of "paying" a child for providing care and how that might affect the ultimate estate available to all the heirs. I would never suggest that caring for an aging parent should in any way DEPEND upon being paid. Especially so in the case of a parent who cannot afford to pay for their own care. However, if I'm the parent and have sufficient resources, I'm going to take a slightly different view. I would most likely devise a plan to compensate the child providing the care, knowing that this would have the effect of decreasing the remaining estate available to divide among all the children. I would also maintain transparency by telling all my potential heirs what I'm doing and why. The simple fact is that we want our children to have good, productive careers in order to provide for their own children and also to make provision for their own eventual retirement. Time spent caring for me would have the indirect effect of decreasing their potential earnings and thus having a negative effect on their ability to accomplish that goal. It deserves consideration, and it demands a fair analysis. Unfortunately, many people postpone thinking about these things until they no longer have the mental faculties to make rational decisions. The end result is that the siblings often wind up squabbling about the estate and acting greedy, when in fact no one is entitled to anything in the first place beyond what their parents decide to leave them. Or, in the case of Ms TK's friend, an incontinent parent, apparently incapable of making their own decisions, with two heirs apparently already at odds over the estate before she's even in the grave. Not a pretty sight.

I'm intrigued by the responses concerning caring for mom. Maybe I've missed something in the translation. But I've been through something like this a couple of times with my in-laws and another relative. If I had two children who were in line to inherit, with one of them caring for me and the other not, then I'd think it is fair to pay the one who is caring for me while I'm still alive, in place of a stranger doing it. I'd probably still split the inheritance equally between the two, but it would be common sense that the payments to the one caring for me while I was still living would inevitably reduce the total amount payable equally to each when it died. That's just common sense. Personally, I don't have any problem, with that outcome, unless the caregiver isn't doing their job or if the non-caregiver is willing and able to shoulder some of the burden. In that case, I'd have to split the payments between both of them in proportion to the time they were willing to spend. As I see it, paying a child to care for me would be much preferable to paying a stranger. Somebody is going to be paid and the eventual estate is going to take a hit for the cost of that care.

OK Jack. You're prohibited from making any political posts until you can verify that your return is done.

I've never filed my personal return before October (except for this year when I filed in mid-Sept just prior to leaving the country for a couple of weeks. ) That's non-revenue-producing time, so it gets done after everything else. I do also like to extend the time to keep the window open for paying into my retirement plan. Over the years I've also read anecdotal evidence that filing on extension marginally reduces the probability of an audit. I choose to believe that, although we've hashed it out on this forum and others and it's clear to me that nobody has a clue one way or the other if it's valid or not.

If we are voting, my vote is -> don't close the political forum. It's always good for a chuckle or two.

I especially agree with the last part of your last sentence. From the outset and at every stage in between, I do everything possible to keep my clients out of my office so I can get some work done.

I've never given anyone a return with P&I calculated (other than Estimated Tax Penalty). I mentally run a rough estimate, keeping it slightly on the high side. I tell them to expect a bill for about $ xxx within 4-6 weeks and to send me a copy when it arrives if they want me to verify it for them. I've never had a client complain about that, and I've never had to explain any differences between my rough estimate and the final bill. To some extent, this issue is about setting expectations. If we condition the client to expect IRS to get it right and then we will check their work, that is a good thing. If we condition the client to think we beleive we are getting it right and IRS will correct our work, then we are setting ourselves up for having to explain why we got it wrong if that happens to occur. Most of the time, when you are explaining your own actions you are backing up.

I think you are correct about Drake. They have figured out that the purpose of a tax program is to prepare an accurate tax return quickly. It doesn't need to be designed to launch a space shuttle.

Are you counting the time involved explaining the differences to the client when they get a notice adjusting the figures your software provided?

Joel: I found that the fillable forms are not so bad. I created an Excel spreadsheet to do all the calculations for me and it is formatted in such a way that the entries line up closely with the fillable form. I populate the fillable form with recurring data and save it as a template. Then just load the template and enter the info from the spreadsheet. I only prepare quarterly reports for a small number of clients, so this works pretty well.

I regard calculting P&I as a waste of time. The only penalty I let any program clculate is the Estimated Tax Penalty. I tell the cleint approximately what the p&I will be and advise them to wait for the notice.

Like Michael, I base that decision partly on how long it takes. For any error I may have made, there's no charge regardless of how long it may take. For something not of my doing but which takes very little time (maybe a letter or phone call), usually no charge because it's a part of good client service. I don't nickel and dime my clients. But for something involved and which I should have been told about (1099-B, etc), I charge for the time spent getting it sorted out. For non-clients who need help with something like this, it's full charge for every minute spent (unless there's an extenuating circumstance).

I had one of those a couple of years back. CLient had several 1099-R forms from various places. He kept telling me the taxable amount on a 1099-R from one fund was wrong, asking me to call them, etc. I did finally speak with the agent, who waffled and said it "might" be wrong and he would look into it. I think he just didn't want to tick off his customer. Extension time rolled around and there was no new 1099-R forthcoming, so I told him the return had to go in "as is". I explained that I had to use the info he gave me and we can't arbitrarily change it. Last year he gave me his info and there was no 1099-R from that particular fund. When I asked about it, he said he didn't take a distribution from this fund in that year. So I made a note of his response and moved on. I suspect we will be revisting this in a couple of years when the CP notice shows up.

I always like my answer when they ask me to explain how the AMT affects them and why they have to pay it. I just tell them it's because Congress thinks they make too much money. Hopefully they'll remember that on their next trip to the voting booth. (Did I just cross a line here?)

Rita: Somehow I knew that was coming. So in contrast to KC's reply, we aren't really talking about the generic "guy". As Her Majesty once replied, "We are not amused."

We could take it to the level of Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin on SNL, with their parody of James Kilpatrick & Shana Alexander's "Point / Counter-Point"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs

Sounds like my favorite scene from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqhm36sjVE

OK Jack, I'm raising a point of order here. You have already made a motion and even voted on it out of order. Sorry, but you can't vote again (and you can't second your own motion in an effort to get it to the floor either).

Is it always a guy?

Good point KC. If I fired clients who forget what I told them last year, I'd be down in the minus digits. I wouldn't even be able to prepare my own return, because I sometimes forget what I looked up last year on some issue and I find myself looking it up again.

Only kidding. My small practice is exactly like yours in that all the complicated stuff gets put on extension. And I did switch from ATX to Drake in late January.

Michael: Are you sure about that? I'm told it is virtually impossible to change software in mid-season. The learning curve is much too steep and it is well beyond my ability to fathom all the complexities...

Yes Jack. Of course you are correct and I don't have a clue. What worked for me when I was the controller for a manufacturing company with exactly the same issues obviously has no parallel in a tax preparation factory. Please disregard everything I just said. (And be thankful you don't work for me)