50% bonus depreciation - poss flaw?

[DesertEA]

Just ordered ATX for tax year 2009 as I am tired of paying Intuit for their ever increasing prices on ProSeries.

After converting my 2008 returns from PS, I went into them to double check the figures and of course some adjustments were necessary - no big deal.

But I found something in "playing/testing" the program that alarmed me deeply. I have already sent it to support. Here is a cut and paste of that email:

----------------------

I have discovered what appears to be a serious flaw in the program. I have tested this on two different returns, in two different states and on 2 >different Forms (Sch E and Sch C)

As you know, most states do not conform to the Federal extra 50% depreciation allowance for 2008. If I enter an asset in the asset entry screen, the program correctly does not calculate the extra depreciation for the state. If I go into Global Options for the asset and accidentally check the box "Utilize FED 50% bonus depreciation calculations for State Amounts", the program correctly does that. If I go back in and UNCHECK the box to not utilize, the program continues to utilize the 50% for state purposes. If this is an error it is very serious and I would be extremely surprised that

it was not caught in beta testing. This is the type of item that I do not want to have to think about.

I am a first year customer of ATX and have been converting and comparing the returns I have prepared in ProSeries so far.

------------------------

Can someone here test this and see if they can duplicate it? I certainly hope this is not the type of thing I am going to have to worry about. ProSeries was expensive but it was also dead on accurate. Never had an issue like this one.

Thank you!

[jainen]

>>ProSeries was expensive but it was also dead on accurate.<<

I am also a ProSeries user. My observation is the same, but how does that lead to NOT wanting it? Accuracy is at the bottom of my priorities--the bottom line, that is.

[DesertEA]

>>ProSeries was expensive but it was also dead on accurate.<<

I am also a ProSeries user. My observation is the same, but how does that lead to NOT wanting it? Accuracy is at the bottom of my priorities--the bottom line, that is.

I'll keep ProSeries if I find more problems like this. I agree that accuracy has to be #1. It's just that $2600 is getting quite expensive for my 100 client practice.

I would have thought that an issue such as this would have been caught and corrected very early in the season. The fact that it was not scares me immensely. I plan on keying in every 2008 return that was completed so far in ProSeries into ATX to see the results. I am going to check and uncheck boxes like there is no tomorrow. I'll report any other issues.

Before becoming an EA, I was employed in software development as a tester (gee, can you tell?). But I am not being paid to beta test. CCH is. I have not yet heard from ATX other than they have sent the issue to the developers. This is very disturbing and I hope it is something *I* did wrong.

[jainen]

>>I hope it is something *I* did wrong<<

That's a very honest and fair thing to say. All software takes a bit of time to learn, and "two different returns, in two different states and on 2 different Forms" doesn't really get you there. You may indeed find that this is more of a quirky workaround than a serious flaw. Sometimes it's as simple as running the diagnostic check a second time.

[DesertEA]

>>I hope it is something *I* did wrong<<

That's a very honest and fair thing to say. All software takes a bit of time to learn, and "two different returns, in two different states and on 2 different Forms" doesn't really get you there. You may indeed find that this is more of a quirky workaround than a serious flaw. Sometimes it's as simple as running the diagnostic check a second time.

Hi Jainen,

The only thing about something like this is that I begin to wonder "what else"? I tested it on two different states to see if it was strictly a state issue. It was not.

When I worked in software development (it was garment manufacturing industry software), part of our job was to check and uncheck every box, delete, re-enter, cancel and re-enter, close the app without saving, type numbers in a text box and vice-versa, turn the computer off by pulling out the plug, check and re-check the calculations, etc - basically to anticipate anything that a user might do. I realize that it is almost impossible to anticipate every single thing, but in the case of ATX 2008, it's AUGUST! *Someone*, I would think would be affected by this. Perhaps they were and did not see it.

This is not some obscure item deep within the program. It's a depreciation check box under Global entries. It should have been caught in January. Does CCH pay the penalties for any errors?

As far as running the diagnostic, I ran it 4 times! I even tried it on a different client with "dummny figures".

This is most definitely (assuming it is not something I did which I am beginning to doubt), not a quirk. What if the asset were a $30,000 item and the system took $15,000 depreciation in New York when it should have been $2,000? That's interest and possible penalties on a $13,000 error.

The main reason I am posting this is to alert other practitioners to the possibility that this could have affected their returns. It is not to trash ATX. I am a user, remember? Nevertheless, since the 2009 tax year will be my first full year with the program (I'll be doing my 2008 extensions with ATX) , this type of thing does not help my confidence level at this point.

[kcjenkins]

Well, I do think that tax software is a bit different than other types of accounting software, simply because it is not only the most complex, but more seriously, the law itself changes so often. I expect that this was something that no one actually did until you did it. I'm glad you warned us, but I don't think many of us had to use that box anyway. Only a few states have a problem with it.

I do agree that the forms people should get back to you with confirmation that they are fixing it. They used to have a link directly to them, called the Forms Pipeline.

I don't have a problem with them using us as extra beta testers, because the tax code is so complex, especially state quirks with the feds, that no one can catch every possible combination of facts that leads to some odd outcome. But so far, they have always fixed anything that I found that needed fixing. I bet you will hear from them soon.

[Gail in Virginia]

And I think one reason that this was not caught earlier might be that in actual practice you don't usually change a check box until you know which way you want it, so changing and then changing it back for something like this on depreciation is probably not that common. At least in our office, it is not.

[kcjenkins]

Exactly. While ideally they should, as mentioned, check then uncheck EVERY SINGLE BOX, in fact, the tax program is today, so very complex, and so large, and has such a short time line to be completed and installed, that it's really impossible to do that unless you charge those huge prices so that you can hire tons of testers. And since the tax code is often, these days, changed up to late Dec, the testers do have lots of other things to test that happen often, first.