jainen

>>I should have rephrased my statement.<< Well, if we could assume that all the facts are true as given, I would have to answer your closing question with "$1,200 of which $200 is for personal return." I mean, that IS one of the facts given. But in my opinion we already see that the return can not be completed with the facts as given, so I suppose my fee would be zero. In my opinion, there are a dozen or more incomplete or inconsistent facts that require a full interview. Was the property taken out of service when the tenant moved out, since it was another month before the decision was made? What in the world constitute "starting costs"? What was the purpose of the real estate loan? Who paid the taxpayer's support and housing costs? I'll assume "qualified child" and "his child" are typos, but at least tell us what months she was working and/or in school.

>>The new windows qualify for the new energy credit<< Which credit would that be exactly?

>>they take security seriously, and do not water down safety requirements for fear of being called names by idiots<< It is not idiotic fear of the Constitution, but idiotic fear of terrorism driven by media hysteria, that is the problem. This New Years weekend should remind us that incidents like last week's failed attempt are dwarfed by the real risks we face. Our tolerance of, even desire for, drunk and angry revelry is a national shame. We seem to find comfort in the cliche, "they hate us for our freedom." But far more Americans are killed just by lovers than by religious fanatics.

>>Where did you get that info?<< Nice try turning this around. But I am not the one adding facts to the scenario. YOU are inventing a new step for the leasing company. I can't say that all states show the lessee as registered owner, but I'm positive that there isn't a dealer in the country who doesn't hand the keys directly to the customer.

>>The only solution, of course, is for all of us to fly naked<< They could issue travel gowns. A flighty nighty.

>>thirty percent... forty percent... no installment... thirty percent<< Reminds me of that old Tom Paxton song What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? I learned that our government must be strong It's always right and never wrong Our leaders are the finest men And so we elect them again and again-- That's what I learned in school today That's what I learned in school!

>>there will be some sort of administrative relief - maybe an "Opt Out" form<< California has an extremely easy opt-out. The client does not need to give a reason or sign anything. >>every one of my clients will be signing it. We will see.<< When California first required e-filing, we all assumed it would be unpopular and many clients would opt out. Not a single one of my clients ever has, or of my colleagues that I know of. Electronic filing is universally accepted as faster, more accurate, and cheaper. What's not to like? Remember, H&R Block boosted their numbers tremendously that way in the 90's, but their business is down now because everybody offers it. (No, I don't mean RAL's, which few non-franchise preparers offer.) Your paranoia about "being manipulated into working as an extension of the IRS or a stealth auditor" is way off base.

>>the real reason for this push is simply to give the IRS total control of ALL tax preparers<< It's no secret that the IRS has been raising ethical standards for practitioners. They will likely require registration in a few years, a concept that was implemented on the state level more than a generation ago. As an Enrolled Agent I support that idea. It works well here in California, self-enforced by a non-governmental industry group. But I believe the push to e-file is simply economics. The IRS saves money in two ways. First, they don't have to pay for a huge data entry function. Secondly, they don't have to store all the records. Well, don't you know those are just about the worst things tax professionals have always complained about? I don't WANT them retyping the numbers I already checked, and I would rather hold the documents myself and let them ask me instead of trying to find things spread across the country. E-file has been mandatory in California for years and I can state unequivocally it takes control AWAY from the IRS.

>>the client received CP504 threatning a levy.<< By the way, this doesn't sound right to me. If the IRS is sending an intent to levy as the second notice of a $180 penalty, they have suddenly gotten much more aggressive. I would guess there is something more going on here. But if that's all there is, be sure to look at Rev. Proc. 84-35 which offers almost automatic penalty abatement if both partners filed their own returns on time.

>>had a problem with e-filing and was forced to manual file. Since the extension deadline is now 9/15/09 the return was late<< Call the number on the collection notice and ask them if the abatement request has been received. Be prepared to fax another. Three weeks is not long enough for processing, so don't worry about, like, Appeals or Taxpayer Advocate. You'll get it straightened out soon enough. And in spite of my next paragraph, I'm sure the penalty will be removed. In fairness to the IRS, they have no requirement to suspend collection action just because an abatement request is pending. In fact, it's normal to request abatement AFTER payment. In my understanding, most abatement requests are not technically adequate anyway. They should be sent to the Director of the Service Center where the return was filed, and have wording specified by Reg 301.6651 to declare the facts under penalty of perjury. Also, I don't know what you gave for reasonable cause, but I hope it was more than you said here because when e-file fails on the due date, the deadline is extended for manual filing.

>>Tax Ideas of 2009<< Great list. Let's see, #10 goes back to the previous administration, and doesn't take effect until sometime in the future. #9 is a trivial sop to some lobbyists. #8, 7, 6, 5, and 4 are just ongoing debate left over from previous years, with nothing new implemented. #3 he portrays as ineffective, but ends by bitterly showing he just doesn't agree with its political goals. #2 speculates on what one non-congressional advisory panel might come up with someday. #1 is a totally sarcastic jibe that never was and never will be taken seriously. Except by Howard Gleckman and his readers.

>>this person will never have money to open a court case<< Don't worry. Tax Court ALWAYS kicks it back to IRS Appeals first, and Appeals will accept the 1040X without any fuss. But the ONLY way to protect your client's rights is to file the Tax Court application within 90 days of the letter. The IRS will not act on anything before then, even if they promise to. (Okay, there IS a subjective procedure available but it isn't worth the effort for a non-filer because you are going to get another chance to submit the 1040X anyway. So just do it the normal, reliable way.)

>>it doesn't delve into the "more likely than not" controversy<< I suppose this means the taxpayer's position was so ridiculous the agent felt he was doing you all a favor only assessing a penalty instead of making a fraud referral, which in turn leads you to the *** appellation. I don't know if that's really what went down, but just based on what you said and how you said it, I suppose it's more likely than not. Well, I wonder how this turned out last week. It seems to me that "delve" is an odd vocabulary choice when contrasting IRS consumer publications with Tax Court rulings. It means to "dig up," as if there was something kept buried. Still, your most important word is "trump." That's a verb with almost no meaning other than its connotations. It's kind of a surprise attack from a different direction, taking the trick even when another suit is led. Maybe you can pull that stunt on an IRS bureaucrat, but I suppose more likely than not it's just Whistful Thinking.

>>converted the vehicle for personal use<< Do you mean the shareholder took a distribution from the corporation?

>>This entire thread should be posted as required reading.<< This thread is for entertainment purposes only, and nobody should be required to have fun. What IS required from tax professionals is reality. The original post suggested a car owner would buy a three year old vehicle at a typically lease-inflated buyout rate so he could claim a tax benefit of, let's see, max 8.75% rate times $15,000 is $1313, times max tax bracket of 35% saves up to $460, with some other effect on AGI and Schedule A. He would do better with ANY other car on the lot, new or old, asking 500 bucks off the price and take the sales tax anyway.

>>How would you approach IRS to get this debt gone?<< Why bother doing anything? The IRS can't. If your client is uncomfortable about that bucketful of letters, have him sign a power of attorney and fill out Form 433-A completely. Find the most recent letter and call the response number. Ask that the case be designated uncollectible. Don't be surprised if it's already in that status, in which case politely disconnect and collect your fee. Otherwise fax your documents and repeat the request. IRS may want the taxpayer to sign a waiver to extend the collection period. Do NOT give your client legal advice concerning that, and document your non-giving of advice. Tell him to see an attorney, and document your telling. Then tell the IRS agent that the waiver is acceptable, and fax it back in. Because otherwise you won't get what you want, including your fee. Be aware for yourself that tax debts can usually be discharged in bankruptcy after three years, and there is a ten year statute of limitations on past due accounts. Uncollectible accounts are supposedly reviewed annually, so consider that a temporary solution while your client gets his life back on track. Later he may have a way to work out a payment schedule or compromise.

>>How would the 433's and 656 be prepared<< Read the instructions to Form 656. They explain how to prepare a joint offer. But do not automatically agree to accept the ex-spouse into this engagement. He only decided "to mess with the problem" after he learned his estranged lover is getting serious. What if he changes his mind again after seeing her financial statement, or even after getting IRS approval? Did you find out what the divorce decree said about joint debts yet? Would they consider modifying the decree at this time? Analyzing those financial statements and supporting documents, determining a realistic payment schedule and preparing the OIC will probably take you ten to twenty hours or more. That will double before you are finished dealing with the IRS on it. Typical fees may be $3000 to $5000, so you need a substantial retainer before getting started.

>>does it illustrate the statistical anomaly that says if I have one hand in the oven and the other hand in the freezer, then "on average" I should be feeling comfortable<< That's only a part of it. You would get the same result if one day you sat in front of the open oven and the next day in front of the open fridge. Or if a friend stuck his hands in the oven while you stuck yours in the fridge. Or if turning on both at the same time trips the circuit so nothing works at all. Just identifying a result doesn't tell you much about the cause.

>>the pasta roller machine<< Hand-made ravioli for TEN? Hey, Booger--you'd better pay close attention to Catherine's advice about your anniversary gift. She knows what she's talking about!

>>implementing that procedure<< So, what I'm thinking of doing is sending out organizers with a preliminary invoice for last year's amount. Then I will guarantee that if they send all documents and the preliminary fee by mid-February I'll have the return ready for timely filing no later than October 1st.

>>Can she solely file OIC on 50% of the debt or does it have to be together?<< She can submit a separate offer against the entire $40,000 she owes. Presumably it would not affect the ex-spouse's tax liability for the same $40,000, so she might do much better just helping the IRS go after him. I mean, suppose the best you can get from the OIC is 50 or 60% of the total debt? That's a pretty common range, and for her it's only $300 per month so unless she's totally unemployable she's going to end up stuck with her half anyway, including a big chunk up front and five years of strict compliance. Remember also that even if the offer is accepted she will still have the same obligations under her divorce decree. Find out what those are.

>>Washer/Dryers were mentioned as possible tax credits along with windows/doors, etc<< In my opinion, such mention would be correct and appropriate. There are indeed several direct and indirect POSSIBLE tax benefits for upgrading equipment related to utility usage, including washers and dryers. Of course, some are only available in specific ways, but nobody thinks the Today Show provides more than general consumer information using common terminology. If our clients come to us with lots of questions, well, isn't that the business we are in? Don't we want opportunities to help them sort through all the possibilities?

>>mentioning washer/dryers in the same sentence as windows/doors/insulation<< Was the sentence, like, "There are IRS credits for windows/doors/insulation but not washer/dryers"? Or, like, "There are local credits for washer/dryers and federal credits for windows/doors/insulation"? Or, like, "Manufacturers of washer/dryers have an energy credit that should reduce consumer costs, while homeowners can take direct credits for windows/doors/insulation"? Or, like, "There is an energy credit for conservation measures like new windows/doors/insulation, and another credit for new systems that generate hot water and electricity to run washer/dryers"? What's wrong with "mentioning" something?

>>if clients hear this kind of info we are going to get a lot of questions<< What kind of info?

>>Merry Christmas to all and have a safe holiday. Now let's party!<< Just this once, even jainen doesn't disagree! Remember, time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.