Talking to the IRS for our clients. Is it just me???

[Jack from Ohio]

Or does it seem that the IRS is putting more and more obstacles in the way to prevent us from helping. Form 2848 is useless unless you are an E.A.. Form 8821 will only work for matters that do not include a discrepiency in the amount of tax owed. (There goes the ability to help for prior year CP2000)

Of what benefit is a CAF number, a PTIN number, and EIN number, or for that matter, ANY identification protocols that we all jump through hoops to get.

My client received a CP2000 for 2010. It stated that income on a 1099C was not claimed. I verfied that form 982 was filed. (She is worse than insolvent). I verified that the form was included in the e-file that was sent. The client received her refund, so I know the return was received.

All I want to do is find out if their system, or CCH transmitting system dropped the ball. But NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I have to call the number on the CP2000, have a threeway phone convo with my client in order to discuss this.

YAK SQUEEZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ILLMAS]

To make things worst now you have to file a his and hers POA (Form 2848) :(

[mcb39]

I agree with both of you. Unless the taxpayer is sitting in my office to give them permission, they absolutely will not talk to me. So, yes, what benefit is the PTIN, EFIN, Check the Box and/or the 2848? I truly believe that the IRS is going to force many very competent and dedicated preparers to retire. Even some of my clients are getting frightened.

Just a note of humor: While I was shopping today, someone put a sticker on my driver's door stating that if I brought the coupon in I would be entitled to $50 off on Tax Prep at Liberty.

[Margaret CPA in OH]

You didn't waste a perfectly good coupon, did you? Maybe save it for the *&^%$ client that you want to fire like MAS.

[mcb39]

I did! I gave it to the girl at the drivethrough at Wendy's along with one of my cards. She thought that was too funny!

[jainen]

>>competent and dedicated preparers<<

Sorry, you may not like what I'm saying, but there is nothing new here. A competent and dedicated preparer can PREPARE the return, and (if the 3rd party designee) respond to IRS notices concerning math errors and offsets. But a prior year CP 2000 for unreported income? No way. If you want to represent taxpayers before the IRS, you still have to be an E.A., CPA, or attorney. Or get the client on the other phone. Same as ever.

[Jack from Ohio]

>>competent and dedicated preparers<<

Sorry, you may not like what I'm saying, but there is nothing new here. A competent and dedicated preparer can PREPARE the return, and (if the 3rd party designee) respond to IRS notices concerning math errors and offsets. But a prior year CP 2000 for unreported income? No way. If you want to represent taxpayers before the IRS, you still have to be an E.A., CPA, or attorney. Or get the client on the other phone. Same as ever.

I prepared the return. It was 2010, the designee box was checked. The CP2000 WAS for 2010. I was not able to discuss ANYTHING! Despite your position, it has not always been this way for CURRENT year returns that I prepare. The past 2 years it has been different! Then to top it off, she said she would reissue the CP2000 and fax it to me. It would take 30 minutes at 5:15PM EST. It is currently 11:28 PM EST and I am still waiting.

The Practicioner Priority Line is a joke for anyone but an E.A., CPA or Attorney.

[Uncle Sam]

This is ONE TIME I totally agree with jainen.

The "check the box" for representative is only in effect for 1 year after filing.

In order to not have this problem in the future - why not become an EA, CPA or Attorney?

Then you'll be able to talk directly with IRS via a duly executed POA.

[JohnH]

I can't remember the last time I used a 2848 - other than a full-fledged audit. 90% of the itme it's much easier to call IRS, conference the client in on the call, then take car of the matter. I typically check with the client that they will be available for the next hour or so and explain that I'll be calling them with someone from IRS on the line and what IRS will ask them in terms of verification. Then I call IRS and put them on speaker while I do other work until the agent comes on the line. I explain that I'm calling for a client who is standing by and ask permission to put them on hold while I conference the client in. Problem solved.

I've never had but one or two occasions where the person from IRS was cranky and refused to let me put them on hold. In those rare situations I just apologized to the jerk, hung up, and called right back. ( I assumed they needed to get back to their nap or coffee break) There's always someone else to talk with, and usually with a good disposition. No sense wasting time & energy with the ones who lack people skills.

Why complicate matters when 75-90% of CP2000's can be handled this way?

[Lion EA]

I work from home out in the boonies. I too make use of three-way calling instead of trying to get the client back in my office. It's a huge time-saver.

When I need a transcript or something I can obtain on e-Services, I get a 2848 signed via email or fax and enter it into e-services and obtain what I need immediately. For an audit or even a mail examination that will go on for awhile, I definitely get the 2848 covering multiple years. So, for those clients, I can call as well.

For that one-time issue where it'll be faster to speak to a real person than compose a letter and wait, the conference call works better unless your client can be in your office conveniently for both you and him. As has been said, you can get a lot of work done while on hold with the IRS if you don't have to babysit your client.

[JohnH]

Definitely don't need to get into the baby-sitting business.

I do everything possible to keep my clients OUT OF MY OFFICE so I can get some work done.

[Catherine]

This year I will be getting signed POA's from -all- my clients when I get initial paperwork from them. Several times this past year I've had clients get weird IRS letters before the returns were processed -- and all the "third party designee" boxes in the world count for NOTHING until the return is processed.

[Margaret CPA in OH]

Good idea to get POA from all. I've considered it from time to time and have probably 20% of them by now. I think I will just add it into the return for each and, when I send the pdf for review, just ask them to sign and fax or mail that form along with the 8879. Next year I suppose I can include the 2848 with the packet I mail out with engagement letter. I think only a couple of clients actually appear here with paperwork; nearly everything is mailed or faxed. There are several clients now I wouldn't recognize should we meet on the street. Hmmm, maybe it's time this year to meet for coffee - could lead to referrals!

[jainen]

>>Good idea to get POA from all<<

What is good about the idea? It is one thing to prepare a tax return. It is an entirely different matter to act as a fiduciary in representing a client before the IRS. If the client doesn't want or need it, why put yourself in that position? I believe it calls for a separate engagement letter and fee structure.

[Pacun]

This is THE ONLY TIME today, I will agree with Jainen.

Does the client hire you to represent them in a non-existing audit that will require form 2848 or do they hire you to prepare their taxes? Another point, what do you think it comes to the mind of the tax payer when the IRS is questioning the return you prepared? I think taxpayers say "my prepare messed up my return". With that in mind, they will try to take the letter to the "other preparer". Having a power of attorney on record is like denying them of their right to seek help somewhere else. Why will you put your client in a possition to cancel the previous power of attorney just because it is inconvenient for you in doing a job you were not hired for in the first place???

[Margaret CPA in OH]

Perhaps you both, jainen and Pacun, have a quite different set of clients from mine. Most of mine have been with me for many years and appreciate when I am prepared to address issues that might arise. I have heretofore not had POA in advance of notices. In response to the multiple complaints mentioned earlier in this thread and cumbersome, time consuming and stressful methods of sorting them out between IRS and clients, my inclination certainly was to make things easier for my clients, should the need arise.

jainen, if the client doesn't want to sign a POA, the client has every right to decline. I don't agree a priori that a POA requires a separate fee structure although, to address broader issues than simply answering straightforward questions, a separate engagement letter may be in order. I do state that on my tax prep engagement letter following AICPA guidelines.

Pacun, I would have the POA to be able to assist with answering questions on a particular tax return, not necessarily under audit, to expedite matters given the complaints stated above. If any client wished to retain additional, previous POA's, they can decline. I can only speak for my clients and none of them have POA's with other CPA's. Yes, I know that to be true having asked at the beginning of engagements. I am unclear as to your meaning with your last statement. I don't see any inconvenience on my part but perhaps am simply not understanding the grammar.

Given the increasing complexity of the entire tax process and multiplying problems with poorly trained or otherwise difficult agents, I am even more inclined to be proactive with my clients - not yours - as I know their issues, their particular situations (many elderly), and their comfort levels managing what may appear to be threatening letters from IRS. I would never force anyone to sign a POA. It is and will always be an option. But I do want to continue to be the person that my clients depend on with tax issues start to finish.

Thanks for the commentary and insights. It is so good to know that opinions abound and are shared. We may also agree to disagree.

[jainen]

>>I would have the POA to be able to assist with answering questions on a particular tax return, not necessarily under audit,<<

Margaret, I do appreciate your concern with client comfort. But there are two kinds of letters. One is called math error, and all you need to handle that is the 3rd party designee. That's enough for any IRS questions concerning the PREPARATION of the return, which is presumably what you are hired to do.

Everything else is a letter audit or worse. You never know what to expect on that level, and can't assume that you would be the best person to handle the problem. I mean, what if the defense has to be poor professional advice? That could conflict with your duty as a fiduciary--you do know that taking a P.O.A. imposes legal obligations?

You really can't do anything until you confer with the client anyway; you sure can't assume that the client wants to disagree with the letter. There are no routine audits. So all-in-all I feel it is better to ask clients to bring IRS letters to you, and then figure out what y'all want to do about it.

[Margaret CPA in OH]

jainen, thanks again for your thoughtful, thorough reply. I do understand, being in the business since 1986, the difference between simple math errors (which may encompass omitted income) and more complicated matters. I also understand that no action is taken before conferring with a client. In addition I also understand that there are no routine audits. I really understand more than you perhaps think.

Again, I was responding to the litany of complaints above, in particular the statement from Jack from Ohio posted 10 January. Obviously the checked 3rd party designee was insufficient. As IRS changes I believe we must be prepared to do the best for our clients, your mileage may vary. (Who was it that used to write that frequently on the old forum?)

Thanks again, jainen. I do respect your comments and am constantly amazed by the depth and breadth of your knowledge. But we may occasionally disagree in kind and extent. This may be one of those times as we are discussing generalities and not specifics.

[mcb39]

jainen, thanks again for your thoughtful, thorough reply. I do understand, being in the business since 1986, the difference between simple math errors (which may encompass omitted income) and more complicated matters. I also understand that no action is taken before conferring with a client. In addition I also understand that there are no routine audits. I really understand more than you perhaps think.

Again, I was responding to the litany of complaints above, in particular the statement from Jack from Ohio posted 10 January. Obviously the checked 3rd party designee was insufficient. As IRS changes I believe we must be prepared to do the best for our clients, your mileage may vary. (Who was it that used to write that frequently on the old forum?)

Thanks again, jainen. I do respect your comments and am constantly amazed by the depth and breadth of your knowledge. But we may occasionally disagree in kind and extent. This may be one of those times as we are discussing generalities and not specifics.

Well stated, Margaret, and totally true IMO

[jainen]

>>the difference between simple math errors (which may encompass omitted income) and more complicated matters<<

"Math error" is a technical IRS term for specifically designated kinds of problems that can usually be fixed by the preparer without much client involvement. It does NOT encompass omitted income.

[Catherine]

I will not be _filing_ those POA's unless they're needed -- and they will be for Tax Year 2011, for Income tax only. I simply have too many clients for whom access to a fax machine (or in some cases even a computer with a working printer!) is difficult. Last year there were several clients who had issues (NOT audits) that cropped up before the return was processed. 3rd party designee line is the -last- item they note, so if the return hasn't been fully processed, I am not YET the 3rd party designee; no one is. So I need POA to answer inquiries.

This year with the new Schedule D and associated forms (8-whatever) I expect numerous letters that will be easier to answer if I can get hold of info on e-services. For that, I need POA.

Simple enough.

Audits etc. are certainly under a separate agreement.