CP 59

[B. Jani]

One of my client received CP59 saying that tax return for 2008 not received. I asked client for the record. It was mailed 03/25/09 on time with certified mail receipt and with check for $1995 cashed by IRS on 03/30/09 as per the bank info on the back of the check.

Should i resend the copy of the tax return with copy of certified mail receipt and copy of cancelled check or should i call?If i need to call then can you able to give me the phone number please. Never had this one before.

[Jack from Ohio]

1) Get a signed 2848

2) Call

[GeneInAlabama]

I HATE the rigamarole of calling the IRS. In cases like that I usually just write a letter with copies of everything. For me, that is just as effective and a lot easier (and faster). I hate telephones and would not have one if I didn't have to.

[jainen]

>>can you able to give me the phone number please<<

Use the phone number on the notice. I recommend you have the taxpayer himself call, as it usually takes a half hour or more and this is most likely a very simple matter that doesn't need professional help and expense. However, you should advise the client that his return receipt is NOT proof that the return was filed on time, and neither is his canceled check. The IRS might be correct for any of several reasons such as misdirected or damaged mail, an SSN mismatch, an incomplete return or missed signature, etc.

In any case, it is my opinion that the tax preparer is partly at fault. Those used to be common problems, but electronic filing has totally eliminated them all. In the 21st century, I don't think we should be exposing any of our clients to letters like that.

[Jack from Ohio]

>>can you able to give me the phone number please<<

Use the phone number on the notice. I recommend you have the taxpayer himself call, as it usually takes a half hour or more and this is most likely a very simple matter that doesn't need professional help and expense. However, you should advise the client that his return receipt is NOT proof that the return was filed on time, and neither is his canceled check. The IRS might be correct for any of several reasons such as misdirected or damaged mail, an SSN mismatch, an incomplete return or missed signature, etc.

In any case, it is my opinion that the tax preparer is partly at fault. Those used to be common problems, but electronic filing has totally eliminated them all. In the 21st century, I don't think you should be exposing any of your clients to letters like that.

AGREE 100%

[JohnH]

I respectfully disagree, but am keenly aware I'm losing the battle.

It won't be much longer until all tax preparers are hard to distinguish from being just an extension of the IRS. But we won't be able to complain too loudly since most of us willingly put our necks(and our clients') on the chopping block, all in the name of efficiency. And for many clients THAT will have been the ultimate client disservice.

But I digress. I think the easiest way to handle this is to check with the client to be sure they're going to be available for an hour or so and then call the IRS. Put the phone on speaker and do something productive while you wait for a live person. When they come on the line, ask them to let you put them on hold while you conference the client in. Then you can get to the bottom of the matter in real time with no POA or delays. The outcome of that phone call will either resolve the problem or allow you to develop a clear plan for the next step.

[jainen]

>>But I digress.<<

It's not a digression. You are exactly on point, though you contradict yourself. Electronic filing does not make us an extension of the IRS any more than ordering books on line makes us an extension of Barnes & Noble. This very incident is a perfect example of how e-file can wrest control of the filing process away from the government bureaucracy. Now we send the IRS nothing at all, except a phone call (that is, the data equivalent of a phone call). No forms, no W-2's, no attachments, nothing--the tax preparer controls it all, along with the signatures and dates and whatever facts the taxpayer is claiming.

How can you defend the need to spend an hour just to get to the point where you can decide what to do next? An hour is more time than I spent filing ALL of my clients.

[JohnH]

Although I get the point, your analogy trying to illustrate a contradiction is a little weak. There is documentation - IRS just needs to be shown where to look. And just for the record, one of my main objections to eflinging is that I specifically do NOT want to control the actual filing of the return - that should be entirely the client's responsibiliity. (that is one of several, but it is important)

I thought I made myself clear, but maybe not. No way I'd spend an hour on this, because the wait time on hold would be occupied with doing something productive. The only real time spent would be in talking with the IRS rep. And that would be less than the time spent preparing the POA, sending it to IRS, sending it again when they lose it, etc. I handle maybe a half dozen of these a year. Some could have been avoided by flinging; others show up for various other reasons.

While I acknowledge there are some benefits to eflinging, discussions like this remind me once again that for many people, when your only tool is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.

[Jack from Ohio]

With E-file also comes acknowledgment with a definite trackable number. If the issue is whether the return was filed or not, you have solid proof of when and where the IRS received it.

All the reasons not to e-file in 2010 amount to declarations that preparers are not able to handle the technical world of this new century! Age is not an excuse.

[JohnH]

All the reasons not to e-file in 2010 amount to declarations that preparers are not able to handle the technical world of this new century! ...

You couldn't possibly be more wrong with that observation ( at least in my case).

[tim g]

I've had several clients receive CP59s over the years. At first I got a POA signed or called the IRS while the client was there. Some of the returns were efiled. The result was always the same. The IRS said that they couldn't find a copy of the return. In the case of efiled returns, the file was damaged and not readable. Please send us another copy. I no longer call the IRS when they request a copy via a CP59. I send them a signed copy with a copy of the canceled check if they owed money, a copy of the return receipt showing who signed the receipt, or a copy of the efile acceptance with a copy of the CP59. I have never had them charge any late penalties following this method.

[Lion EA]

You can submit a POA via e-Services and have acknowledgment that it's there immediately.

[Jack from Ohio]

You couldn't possibly be more wrong with that observation ( at least in my case).

I would be truly interested in information about how my observation is wrong?

[jainen]

>>how my observation is wrong<<

If you believe someone is "not able to handle the technical world," how could that person handle such a question?

The problem is not the technical elements as such. We can all work our way through the software and hardware challenges, if we want. But the effective application of technology has stymied experts at every level. It's nothing new--the Luddite movement dates back two hundred years. But of course Ned Ludd failed, just as Guy Fawke's attack on secular government failed before that.

In my opinion, anyone who talks about "eflinging" has an attitude that prevents the basic understanding of how important and valuable is the control the IRS has given our industry.

[JohnH]

Actually, I borrowed the term "eflinging" from a retired IRS agent and acknowledged expert on non-profits who frequented the old ATX forum - hardly someone who lacks understanding of the issues. (many of you know who this is) He & I just happened to agree on a number of other apects of eflinging which aren't popular in the industry or on this forum. Don't forget the basic principle that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction - whatever control the IRS gives to our industry has the potential to work in the opposite direction as well.

As for how your observation is wrong, Jack, I'd say jainen pretty well answered it. The technical aspects of eflinging are the least of my concerns. I've never had any trouble adopting any technological innovation I decided was in my best interests, but it has to pass the second test before I invest the time & effort. You are correct that there are many people who are technologically challenged and resist eflinging for that reason - you just happen to be wrong in having jumped to that conclusion regarding me. I sometimes use similar debating techniques to goad, embarrass, or shame people into seeing things my way, so I don't have any problem with your approach in general. It just doesn't work in my case because you're missing the point - setting up a straw man and then knocking him down seldom works.

[B. Jani]

Well, i did call irs today and the problem is solved but this is i found.

The return was filed MFJ but the CP59 was issued to wife as she did not file the tax return for 2008. The name and SS# were correct on the copy of the tax return. The person who did data entry at IRS missed to mark that return is MFJ (some check mark in front of wife name). So IRS computer recognize the husband did file but wife is missing.

When i gave all the info over the phone, they saw the problem at there end and transfered me to the second lever who can fix this check mark error done by IRS. Finally got the live person and he took care of it.

The second level CSR told me it is done & no more letter coming from IRS. I requested to mail client a confirmation letter so client has some record. The CSR denied that there is no such letter and problem is taken care of so why to worry. I insisted more and finally agree to send one. I am just crossing my fingers that client may get a confirmation letter and no more CP59.

Client was with me for whole 51 minutes and now he agrees that he will EFILE from next year.

Thank you for all your input.

[Jack from Ohio]

Actually, I borrowed the term "eflinging" from a retired IRS agent and acknowledged expert on non-profits who frequented the old ATX forum - hardly someone who lacks understanding of the issues. (many of you know who this is) He & I just happened to agree on a number of other apects of eflinging which aren't popular in the industry or on this forum. Don't forget the basic principle that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction - whatever control the IRS gives to our industry has the potential to work in the opposite direction as well.

As for how your observation is wrong, Jack, I'd say jainen pretty well answered it. The technical aspects of eflinging are the least of my concerns. I've never had any trouble adopting any technological innovation I decided was in my best interests, but it has to pass the second test before I invest the time & effort. You are correct that there are many people who are technologically challenged and resist eflinging for that reason - you just happen to be wrong in having jumped to that conclusion regarding me. I sometimes use similar debating techniques to goad, embarrass, or shame people into seeing things my way, so I don't have any problem with your approach in general. It just doesn't work in my case because you're missing the point - setting up a straw man and then knocking him down seldom works.

Pray tell enlighten the uninformed and courtesy challenged of us what you refer to in the underlined text? Those intellectually challenged of us are waiting with bated breath...

Well, i did call irs today and the problem is solved but this is i found.

The return was filed MFJ but the CP59 was issued to wife as she did not file the tax return for 2008. The name and SS# were correct on the copy of the tax return. The person who did data entry at IRS missed to mark that return is MFJ (some check mark in front of wife name). So IRS computer recognize the husband did file but wife is missing.

When i gave all the info over the phone, they saw the problem at there end and transfered me to the second lever who can fix this check mark error done by IRS. Finally got the live person and he took care of it.

The second level CSR told me it is done & no more letter coming from IRS. I requested to mail client a confirmation letter so client has some record. The CSR denied that there is no such letter and problem is taken care of so why to worry. I insisted more and finally agree to send one. I am just crossing my fingers that client may get a confirmation letter and no more CP59.

Client was with me for whole 51 minutes and now he agrees that he will EFILE from next year.

Thank you for all your input.

This example just makes my point. The NUMBER ONE reason to e-file is ACCURATE transfer of information.

If you calculate the time spent in printing, collating, mailing, phone calls, trips to the office for the client, time on the phone, etc... Less than 2 minutes to e-file makes a whole lot of sense.

[JohnH]

Pray tell enlighten the uninformed and courtesy challenged of us what you refer to in the underlined text? Those intellectually challenged of us are waiting with bated breath...

This example just makes my point. The NUMBER ONE reason to e-file is ACCURATE transfer of information.

If you calculate the time spent in printing, collating, mailing, phone calls, trips to the office for the client, time on the phone, etc... Less than 2 minutes to e-file makes a whole lot of sense.

Whoa there Jack. I'm not suggesting anyone is intellectually challenged. I was simply pointing out a flaw in your statement that failure to jump on the eflinging bandwagon automatically equates to a declaration that one can't handle modern technology. That's a seriously flawed assumption. Just because you're wrong in making a sweeping generalization of that type doesn't make you intellectually challenged. And just because you try to employ a perfectly valid debating technique doesn't make you courtesy challenged. Lighten up and enjoy the conversation...

The answer to the underlined text is found in the new string about why some of us aren't willing to efling . No sense reinventing the wheel here. (By the way, I just recently discovered the wheel - what a great idea! Why didn't somebody think this thing up a long time ago?)