ATX is taking $10 Ral fee out of your invoice!!!!

[BulldogTom]

The $10 RAL transmission fee that has had me up in arms lately is even worse. ATX is taking it from me, not adding it to the client fees.

Here is how it works, and you can test it yourself.

I put in a simple return 1040, HOH, 2 dependents, CTC, ACTC, EIC and a RAL. My fee for prep is (for argument sake) $100. I have an add on of $10 for the application added automatically via SBBT, and there is the $10 fee for ATX.

But here is the kicker.........

When you go into the SBBT RAL application, ATX is doing some funny math, and my prep fee is only $80!!!!!!! They are taking there freaking transmission fee out of my prep fees!!!! And my addon for the RAL application.

ATX MAX....Everything you need and no hidden fees.....

YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!

Am am as mad at them as I have ever been. This is just not right. Why are they playing these games this year?

Now for the solution to this problem....override your fee in the application. Where ATX puts in $80 where it should be $100, just override it and put in $100.

I have not transmitted a return yet, so I am not sure this will work. If not, I assume I can just up my prep fees by the amount ATX is stealing and my application fee.

Just a heads up to the rest of you.

Tom

Lodi, CA

[GeorgeM]

This is not ATX's doings, I used TaxWise once and this was set up in Taxwise so not CCH is taking advantage of it it ATX. :(

[Teri2414]

I noticed something similar when setting up FeeCollect. There is a $10 transmission fee listed in my program and in my account info on the ATX website. I emailed them 2 days ago to ask if this was a one time charge or an every FeeCollect transmission occurence. I have not heard from them yet. If CCH is charging $10 fee on top of SBBT $15 fee, it was not disclosed in any of the materials I have. I can talk people into an extra $15, but an extra $25 is going to be tough. Maybe I'll just go back to holding their personal check until their refund deposits.

[Slappy Tax]

That's ok, Teri, so long as you know that, legally, if you "hold" a check or accept a postdated check, the issuer of the check cannot be prosecuted if the check turns out to be bad. I imagine this rule differs by state, but that's the way it works in Florida and I'm pretty sure that's the general rule. I'm not sure whether that means you wouldn't be able to proceed with a civil action, but the state's attorney (that's what they're called in Florida) would not pursue criminal actions. This is true even if the payer asks you to hold the check for just an hour or so, i.e., any amount of time. Of course, all of us, including myself, have held checks for clients. And knowing when the refund is going to hit their account makes it pretty safe, but not certain, that you'll be able to collect. But I accept that there's risk involved anytime I agree to hold a check. Of course, I guess there's risk involved anytime anyone pays you with anything other than cold hard cash.

[Gregster]

That's ok, Teri, so long as you know that, legally, if you "hold" a check or accept a postdated check, the issuer of the check cannot be prosecuted if the check turns out to be bad. I imagine this rule differs by state, but that's the way it works in Florida and I'm pretty sure that's the general rule. I'm not sure whether that means you wouldn't be able to proceed with a civil action, but the state's attorney (that's what they're called in Florida) would not pursue criminal actions. This is true even if the payer asks you to hold the check for just an hour or so, i.e., any amount of time. Of course, all of us, including myself, have held checks for clients. And knowing when the refund is going to hit their account makes it pretty safe, but not certain, that you'll be able to collect. But I accept that there's risk involved anytime I agree to hold a check. Of course, I guess there's risk involved anytime anyone pays you with anything other than cold hard cash.

And even cash isn't worth what it once was...

However, I am curious...if I presented a post dated check to a bank to cash AFTER the valid date on the check, how would any states attorney know it was postdated by the client in the first place?

[Slappy Tax]

It's not a problem if the check turns out to be good. The point is that if the check bounces and the writer never makes good on it, you can submit the check to the state's attorney for prosecution. What this really means is that the bad check writer's information is entered into a database, and if the check writer ever encounters the police for any reason (usually it's a traffic ticket), the police check the database and haul the bad check writer in for a night in jail. However, when you forward the bad check to the state's attorney, you have to sign a statement to the effect that the check writer did not ask you to hold the check for any amount of time (even for an hour or so). If you indicate that you were asked to hold the check and you accepted it, then the check becomes criminally unenforceable. I'm not sure of the legal theory underlying these procedures, but that's what they are in Florida.

[BulldogTom]

I am not sure that it works that way in CA. We routinely accept a post dated check (the refund cycle chart date that they expect their refund). I have never heard that it was unenforceable. In fact, we have prosecuted a bad check and been paid by the county after the district attorney collected. That was a post dated check. I don't remember any language like you mention. Perhaps it is a local law for you.

Tom

Lodi, CA

[Teri2414]

Interesting local laws. I know in my particular city in Wisconsin the District Attorney won't even look at a bad check if it's under $100.00. Anything under that amount is a civil matter and incurs local court filing fees if you want to go to small claims court - usually not worth the hassle. Anyway...back to the topic at hand. I did finally hear back from ATX, but the email answer itself was confusing (made it sound like I was paying $10 just to efile) so I grit my teeth and called the support number in the email. I had to redial 5 times before I got through and was on hold for about 30 minutes (it was about 5pm cst on Monday). I then spoke to a very nice woman who checked into my questions and confirmed that I did have unlimited efile (Max) and the $10 fee was for bank product transmissions - they obviously include FeeCollect as a bank product. However, of the $10.00 charge supposedly $6 goes to CCH and $4 is put towards an account for me to upgrade software. Interesting....still don't know if I'm going to use the FeeCollect or not - I cleared up all of my outstandings last year with it and my clients know my new policy. Time will tell. Hope everyone is off to a good start!:)

[Gail in Virginia]

I don't think it is a local law, I think that it is part of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, whether they ask that many questions about the check is probably a local matter. In many cases, if you don't volunteer the information, you are never asked.

[Mel in Hawaii]

and $4 is put towards an account for me to upgrade software.

Is this how they put it? Upgrade software or you don't get your money back? I wonder what they would say if you said you wanted to 'upgrade' to the competition?

[BulldogTom]

However, of the $10.00 charge supposedly $6 goes to CCH and $4 is put towards an account for me to upgrade software. Interesting....

So, if I were only to renew for MAX next year, since I did not upgrade, I could not use the $4.

That sounds like the CCH I am expecting. It is not a $4 rebate for us, and we cannot use it except to purchase more software from them.

They can take their $4 and shove it up there server! They are theives. I wish nothing but pain on CCH this year.

Tom

Lodi, CA

[Lloyd Hudson]

I processed the first of my three annual RALs yesterday. Fees direct deposited to business account this AM. $10.00 "transmitter" fee added to tax prep fees. $25.00 document fee added to tax prep. Deposited to my account all of the $$s plus additonal deposit of "incentive" 4.00. The $4.00 was a separate deposit.

[BulldogTom]

I processed the first of my three annual RALs yesterday. Fees direct deposited to business account this AM. $10.00 "transmitter" fee added to tax prep fees. $25.00 document fee added to tax prep. Deposited to my account all of the $$s plus additonal deposit of "incentive" 4.00. The $4.00 was a separate deposit.

Well, that is different than what was posted. Better than I thought, but I still wish them pain.

Tom

Lodi, CA

[Teri2414]

I wonder if it will make a difference when you are talking about a RAL when I was talking about FeeCollect which never was considered a true bank product before, but is now by CCH. I have a client coming on Monday who already told me he wanted to use FeeCollect this year again. We'll see where the money goes.....

[Slappy Tax]

Just to close the loop on the postdated check discussions, here is info for the rules in Florida:

Procedures and Requirements for filing a Worthless Check Complaint with the State Attorney’s Office (Broward County, Florida)

Generally, the check must have been accepted in Broward County, Florida or mailed from Broward County. If mailed, the envelope with the postmark is needed.

The check must not have been postdated.

The check writer must not have asked the recipient to hold or delay deposit of the check, even for a very brief period of time.

There must not have been any reason for the recipient to believe the check would not be honored.

The check should be stamped with the bank processing date and reason that the check was returned. We accept Non Sufficient Funds (NSF), Account Closed and Stop Payment check complaints only. Any other reason must be explained in writing by the check writer’s bank.

Sufficient information is required to identify the check writer and must be written on the check at the time it is accepted. That includes the full name, sex, height, date of birth, home address, home, business telephone numbers, employer, copy of driver license, driver license number, identification card, state of issuance and membership card number.

This office strongly recommends that businesses establish procedures to ensure proof of identification such as a photocopy of the driver’s license with check. Failure to do so may result in the office declining to prosecute due to insufficient evidence.

Additional identifying information may be required in order to issue a summons. That may include eye and hair color, Social Security number, weight, unusual physical features, passport number/country, business address.

Person accepting the check should initial or note his/her employee ID number if applicable when it is accepted.

Person accepting the check from the check writer (or some other witness) must be able to appear in court and positively identify the defendant or at least testify about a procedure used to ensure proper identification such as the attachment of photocopy of picture identification card or surveillance cameras.

[GeneInAlabama]

Looks like Florida lawmakers are more interested in protecting bad check writers than they are in protecting the victims.

[Gail in Virginia]

Not just Florida - When I was treasurer of the local PTO, the previous treasurer had not followed up on some bad checks. After trying unsuccessfully to get responses form people directly, I filed warrants for bad check charges. When it got to court, I got a lecture from the judge about what a serious thing it was to charge these people with writing bad checks when I did not personally see them write the check, nor did I personally receive the check from them (the checks were from a fundraiser, and probably were accepted by a grade school child.) I might have felt really badly about it, but I collected on every one of those checks once the people knew they were going to have to go to court and face a judge. However, I have learned that once in court, they do have the protection of the court on their side.

[Jack from Ohio]

I just enrolled for FeeCollect. I was told by several sources (including 2 different sales reps from CCH) that the $10 transmittal fee did not apply to FeeCollect, only Bank Products. When I got acks this morning, there was a message that "Transmittal Fee for SBBT is now $10." It came with my acks.

Is anyone using FeeCollect yet? Is it charging the $10 transmittal fee?

Too many contradictory answers, and too much bogus information from CCH for my liking.

Note to self: Start sending requests for Tax Software demos from several companies for your summer "Find a new software" project.

[Slappy Tax]

Gail, it sounds as though you got a judge who just didn't like being in charge of check collection cases and decided to rag on you about it. That's nonsense. Can the judge say that Wal-Mart or Target would have to find the specific cashier who actually saw someone write a check and have that cashier testify? Things like checks are business records kept in the normal course of business and as such are assumed to be correct and are an exception to the hearsay rule, subject to challenge of course. If a person doesn't like being charged with uttering bad checks, there's a simple solution: don't write bad checks. No matter what, though, you got the money.

[BulldogTom]

Back to my original post, it appears that the invoice was updated or corrected. When I ran my first RAL last night, the invoice total matched on the RAL application.

I am still not happy about the fee, but at least they are not stealing it from me.

Tom

Lodi, CA

[Teri2414]

Well, I tried to use FeeCollect yesterday but had an issue with the SBBT Bank Product form coming up and then it appeared on the E-File info that even an RT...which is what FeeCollect basically is had an additional Bank Fee; FeeCollect was not showing as a separate option as it did last year. Assuming it was wrong I attempted to send it through anyway only to find out that according to my program (which updated by me several times a day and I even synced it) says my status for FeeCollect is still processing when it has said complete on myatx for over a week now. Not having the time or desire to wait forever trying to call support, I have simply chosen not to bother with FeeCollect this year.