JohnH

KC: I'm surpirsed that no one has taken you to task for using that ugly, indefensible, and racially/politically charged epithet - "illegal aliens". You should have called them "undocumented workers" or some other innocuous term so as not to offend anyone's tender sensibilities.

They already have. They go by the name of "Cruise Ships"

If price is the main factor, they must choose Drake because it's the only game in town given those parameters. I like Drake and plan to continue using it until I retire, but if price were not an issue I'd probably go back to Ultra Tax because I liked it immensely the 3 years I used it until my discount aged out. That was several years ago - I can only imagine what they have done with it since then.

Good response Gene. A thick skin is a valuable asset in the tax business. Anyone who comes here without one can find a valuable opportunity to work on that shortcoming - provided they are teachable.

That happens here in Charlotte, NC as well, although we may be talking about different types of accents...

I have a few clients I'd like to sell. Let me know if you're interested and I'll tell you how much I'm willing to pay you to take them. Then we can negotiate from there.

Sounds delicious. Happy 4th.

Language can take some interesting twists and turns. Reminds me of the story about the guy arriving at the Boston airport after a long flight. He jumped into the back of a cab and blurted out "Can you take somewhere to get scrod right now?" The cabbie replied "Mister I've heard that question lots of times and many ways. But this is the first time anybody's asked it in the pluperfect subjunctive."

i like it.

I never give any info to third parties. I'll send to the client and let them turn it over, but no way I'm going to get in the middle of a transaction between a client and a lender. I'll gladly give the lender the form number for requesting a transcript, and that's all. One lender pressed me on this, implying that the client might alter the info. I told him if he really thought that to be the case, the bigger question would be whether he should be doing business with the client in the first place.

I think justice might be well served if she is granted immunity. As much as the left would like to sweep this under the rug, it isn't likely to go away. Sooner or later some people will crawl out from under the bus.

If this thread continues much longer, it's going to be hard to understand without a crib sheet.

I'd tell them the proper means of obtaining this info is to request a transcript from IRS. They will have no problem obtaining that info if they are authorized tp get it. But I will be interested on what others on this forum have to say about the inquiry. BTW, here's a link to their web site. http://www.researchconsultants.net/services.php

Aw shucks, I guess not.

Whatever the outcome, the client should take the philosophical long view, even if he has to borrow money to pay the taxes, penalties, and interest. You said that he funded most of the extensive improvements from corporate profits. If he had paid the taxes then he would have needed to borrow roughly that same amount of money from the bank (or somebody) to pay for the improvements. So with respect to the overall operation, he simply replaced the bank borrowing with borrowing from the IRS, albeit at possibly a slightly higher effective interest rate. The other issue of course is the FTF and FTP penalties, but that cost is entirely on him for failing to plan properly. Maybe an expensive lesson for him, but on the other hand a FTF penalty maxed out at 25% could be regarded as effective interest as well. (5% APR for the 5th preceding year, 6.5% APR for the 4th preceding year, 8% APR for the 3rd preceding year, etc, grossed up slightly for the foregone tax deduction at his corporate tax rate). He still isn't going to like the end result, but after netting out all the variables, I'll bet his true net cost of borrowing from the government will hover at around an effective 11-13% APR. Much higher than what it would have been if he'd done things properly (maybe 6-9% APR) but not the end of the world. This all assumes, of course, that the business continues to thrive and can actually pay the taxes, penalties, and interest in the future.

So here I drop in to see what's happening on the ATX Forum and a corny joke pops out at me....

Please go back to page 1 of Common Sense 101 and re-read in its entirety. You're badly misunderstanding the content.

Very simple if you apply even a rudimentary understanding of the facts. Your last statement tells me you don't know the difference between verbal equivalence and moral equivalence. I can do my research and choose which corporations I invest in. If I still make a mistake and buy Monsanto, I can sell my shares and choose someone to manage my investment elsewhere. None of that applies with the US government. Monsanto can't force me to invest in their enterprise - the US government can and does. Monsanto can't use the power of the state to seize my earnings, waste what they wish, and give much of the rest to others whom they believe are "more deserving'. Incidentally, I have a moral obligation to help others, but by attempting to make that decision for me, the government robs me of the ability to be a good steward of the resources I have available. There are certain jobs only government can do well. It has an obligation to do them and we should pay taxes to support them. Social engineering does not fall into that category. Any more questions, or do you need to pull out your Economics 101 book so we can have an intelligent discussion about this?

Shareholder money is voluntarily invested in the company. Taxpayer money is confiscated from hard-working citizens by the power of the state. Even if there were any equivalence in the two types of waste, there's a huge difference between the two for anyone who cares enough to think through it.

Weight loss - yes! Reminds me when I was sitting in a meeting beside a guy who kept pulling something out of his pocket and munching on it. It had an odd smell, and when I asked him about it he said he's on the "Purina" diet. He explained that he carries bite-size bits of dog food with him and snacks on it. So far he's lost 30 lbs. I asked if he'd had any problems and he said 'Nothing other than the few days I spent in the hospital." Shocked, I asked if it had created some sort of digestive blockage. He replied, "Oh no, that wasn't the problem at all. I was walking down the street and spotted a really nice-looking blonde Laborador Retriever across the street. I couldn't resist the urge to run over and give her a sniff. I was so distracted I never saw the car that hit me. It put me in the hospital for a week, but I'm doing fine now."

Good advice. I also found that preparing a return on one screen while running a relevant tutorial from Drake's web site on another screen was very helpful in getting up to speed. Dual monitors facilitate this, or just running the tutorial on a laptop or tablet will work equally well. (I mention this only because someone on another forum responded that they can't do this because they don't have dual monitors)

While preparing a client's 2012 return in Drake, I noticed a variance from ATX 2011 which made me stop and double-check. The client is an active member in an operating LLC which elected to be taxed as a partnership. On the K-1, there was an amount listed under "Other Deductions - Box 13, Item M", which is qualifying self-employed health insurance. In ATX 2011, the amount of self-employed health insurance is properly listed on line 29 as an adjustment to AGI. But upon checking the figures, I discovered that the same figure was also transferred to Schedule A, line 1. The net result is that the deduction was taken twice. In my client's case, the net effect isn't great because 7.5% of their AGI wipes out most, but not all, of the Schedule A amount. I will be amending their return because the "most but not all" still requires an amended return. It may be that I made an entry somewhere in ATX which caused this double entry. I certainly should have caught it with a more careful review. But I just wanted to post this just in case anyone else has potentially has this problem. And I'd like to know if I did something wrong (other than just relying upon the software to get it right). Lesson learned - again.

Rich: Now there's a novel concept. Are you saying you are in business to earn a profit? Maybe you think that taking the risks of running your own business warrants more than simply earning wages? Wonder how prices would compare among tax preparers if more people adopted your radical ideas. H-m-m-m...

Wonder how many of those addresses were prisons. ?? I'm betting the NC Central Prison in Raleigh was where the 2,408 NC refunds went.

“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing” ... Jean Baptiste Colbert (French Economist and Minister of Finance under King Louis XIV of France. 1619-1683)