jklcpa

I'm confused by this. How is it possible for the ATX program to allow the 4868 and the 1040 to be filed at the same time? Extensions I file are because I am missing data and the input has estimated amounts in it about 99% of the time. Will these returns require amending now?

If you haven't yet done so, I would go to Drake's support site, and under "Reports," print out the "E-file Detail Lookup Report ." That report is more detailed than what is available through the software. For Federal and each state return, it shows the time stamp, its e-file status, the e-file submission i.d., and the DCN. The submission i.d. is unique to each return, so CA's identifier will be different than the federal or any other states for the client. Because by Monday you will be beyond the 5 day correction period for rejected e-files, that report would prove that e-filing was done timely, because if you end up resubmitting the e-file for some reason, it is my understanding that a new e-file submission i.d. is generated and that may make it appear as if these returns were filed late. If you don't have acks by Monday, I also think you should escalate this to a higher level with Drake than with those that provide basic telephone support. There were other years where posts here indicated a delay of 2-3 days immediately after the deadline, but this seems too long to me.

Are these returns on extension? The reason I ask is that my state doesn't accept e-filing of its extension, so when I send the 4868, I always click the box to suppress the state from being sent just in case. Then, I always have to remember to uncheck that box when I file the returns themselves. Any possibility something like that happened? Another thing, have you checked the e-file database for these 5 returns, either through the software or Drake's online site to make sure they were sent and for the timestamps?

Sounds good, but I would suggest this substitution: After reflecting, I realize that I need to reduce my workload to a more manageable level.

When I read posts like some here in this topic and others, and I think back to the workload I endured in my earlier career, I worry about some of you and about us as a profession overall. I haven't made nearly the amount I could have for whatever talents I have, but I have made a concerted effort for a healthier work-life balance and am happier because of those choices. This work can be extremely rewarding, but I believe that it shouldn't be at the expense of our health and well-being. I wish you all well, hope that you recover quickly, and are able to enjoy some quality time away from the office. I also hope to see you here in the off-season as we continue to work at a less hectic pace.

If someone did that to me, I wouldn't have wasted an hour and may have considered not continuing on with the client, all depending on the tone of the lecture and insistence. Probably not over rounding though. Twice in my career I had returns ready to file, took them back from the client and disassembled them, handed original source documents back, and showed the (former) client the door. However, it was people who had outright lied, insisted I file a certain way, and when I refused to file fraudulent returns, accused me of not knowing what I was doing! Fine, they could go find someone else!

So much BS. My BCBS rep told me today that I should have had the Part D drug policy in place by April 1st also. She'd never heard of Part A ever being earlier than Part B, so when she looked into it, she could see that about my Part D date.

So, I will be 65 next month and applied for Medicare. I did not realize that really special people are born on the 1st of a month are eligible for Part A the month BEFORE turning 65, while Part B can begin in the month of the birthday. This means that I was not eligible for that HDHP or to contribute to my HSA for the month of April, but at least I haven't overfunded it. But WHY is eligibility a thing where Part A kicks in a month ahead? WHY?! Next, I decided to renew my state permits to practice. The portal is always very slow and now has a box that requires the date when I first registered for peer review. Well, I found the original letter from the AICPA showing my registration back in 1998, so the state is getting a copy of it! So there, take that you pesky state! I mean, It's only been 27 years already! And then in the middle of that renewal, my most procastinating client ever called (again) to say is "working" on get documents together. I still don't have anything from for 2023, let alone this past year! Arrggh! On a brighter note, I delivered my final returns that have been completed for the season and filed the few that are on extension. I am taking a few days off now and will take hostilities out on some clay pigeons tomorrow!

You already have the answer for the federal superseded through ATX, but this topic came up earlier this season, and at that time when I checked, there were only three states (CA, UT, NY) that accept superseded individual returns. That means that if your client's state return(s) also requires correction and isn't one of those three states I listed, then you will have to create a separate file for the state amendment. It may be easier to process by amending both the federal and state at the same time.

Faulty AI and no human to error check and correct?

But if the actual method is used in the first year, then the client must continue to use that and can't ever switch to cents-per-mile method.

I'm waiting for it to go to a second page!

I may use that on a difficult meeting tomorrow!

What Abby said, plus if prior preparer changed software providers without conversion, the LTCL c/o entry may have been missed.

PA has its own sch K-1s for either resident or nonresident partners or shareholders. Do you have a PA NRK-1 ("NR" meaning nonresident)? The PA return should back out the federal information and pick up the activity reported on the state NRK-1. Hope this helps.