kcjenkins

I am sure you can get a demo, whether it is for you will depend on what you are doing now, and how well if fits your particular way of 'filing' your client files. If you have no system, or just a hit and miss system, it would probably be a good thing. If you already have a smooth running system, then it probably will not add much. Either way, expect it to take a while to set up and to get used to, but after that, like most new programs, you will wonder why you did not get it sooner. There is a reason, after all, why all the best software includes some kind of document management program. This electronic filing is the way we are all going, and like any other change, we all tend to resist it at the beginning, then wonder why we did not demand it sooner, once we get used to it. I'm one of the oldies, so I have been slow to want to make changes. But the more we store files electronically, the more we need SOME SYSTEM of sorting, storing, and accessing quickly, our client files. Getting rid of a lot of file cabinets is only the start of the benefits. So I'd advise you to check it out, at least. Before you buy it as a standalone, tho, consider that it is part of TTO, so look at the cost of moving up, considering that it's included. Might be a better deal, if it costs the same, to move up and get all the things TTO offers.

Yes, today they could give anyone access to the program, with minimal security, because the EFIN is all the 'tracking' they need. And it will soon be required, I expect, by all states, that we efile. Which is a bit scary, if you think of it. If the IRS suspends you, due to some error, you are almost out of business. And don't say that can not happen, I know for a fact it has. Then they took months to admit it and reinstate the preparer.

To an extent, that depends on the state involved. Some states tax LLCs more than they tax Ss. But it's really a question for a local attorney, not a tax question. Also depends on what the planned 'destination' of the land is. Planning to pass it on to family? Or sell?

I think it was just the 'automatic' $30 and $40 ones that they were not going to audit. Some of the business ones will be, and you just 'got lucky'. Glad you kept all the documentation handy, that should make it a breeze.

First, be sure that it was not in his 2004 W-2, as it normally would have been. I would expect that you will find that portion has already been taxed, which means it is now part of his basis.

I just looked at it for the second time, and it's amazing how few questions have more than a couple of responses. Very little activity. Not worth the time. IMO.

Yes, Nat Guard pay is eligible for the deduction.

That is the basic problem with all the DIY software, the users don't understand the tax code well enough to recognize when something is wrong, which is often just a matter of checking or not checking the correct box. Software can make the mechanics of tax returns easy, but it can not make decisions for the user. So unless the user understands the tax issues, and the options, they often end up making serious mistakes. But, hey, the returns LOOK great. Very neat and all the math is good.

I agree with basically all you said, Joel. I don't know why they won't give you that promise in writing, since the law would give it to you anyway. But frankly I think it is because no one on the phones has the authority, rather than that they are planning a coup. I do think that their marketing department sucks, big time. But like you, I was paying around $3500 for the full TAASC program before I switched to ATX. So I'm very conscious that the price is a very fair one for the program we get. And I have been made a lot more comfortable after talking to folks who are actually working on the new program. I just spent some time with support yesterday, after I got locked out of the support page, and could not get back in. Turned out the problem was that the Activation Code, which is the password to use to change your password, was changed IN THEIR RECORDS. I know it was at their end, because I have the original packing slip with the activation code, which I was using, which did not work. Turned out they had two numbers changed in the 20 number code. Weird. By the way, one thing I will never do is abandon this board for their board, since they have already shown that they do not consider our needs when it comes to the board.

It was $20 per year from the old ATX. Last year CCH changed that to $100 but that amount included multiple years if you wanted them. So it was not a bad deal. If I had to order one, I'd ask for multiple years, given that deal, just for backup. Thankfully, I do have my disks.

Gee, John, I can not imagine what the problem was. My ATX toaster is fantastic, although the ATX microwave is a bit small. What could you be doing wrong to have not gotten yours? :D

Yes, Mel, although I am going to go with ATX again for the 08 program, I'll invest in yours anytime you ask, and I will certainly buy it when you have it up and running. I think lots of us would buy it and use both for a year or two, perhaps, while you get it fine tuned. So do keep us informed, and when you are ready, we will go all out to spread the word for you.

http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?ARTICLEID=27631

Well, I like Kleinrock, and I also like that having it integrated with the tax program means time saved when I need the research 'right now'. That to me is worth the extra cost. To each his own priorities, of course.

Well, fact is, the person who emailed me used his personal email, because he is not allowed to post on this or any other board from his workplace. Why that is CCH policy is anyone's guess. I believe him, I trust him, and I wanted his opinion of whether work was going forward on the new program. That clip was from his response to my question to him, not something that he just decided to send to me. I don't blame you for being suspicious, Tom, I was too, which is why I asked him the question. I think we all need to remember, though, that ATX has over 35,000 users, and that is a lot of business to just casually discard. Although I agree that CCH has done some really dumb things this year, I really don't think that they would scuttle that large a market group. PS, to all who sent messages asking if the tornadoes affected me or mine, the answer is no, we are all fine. One sister in law does work at a business in Earle AR that was hit, but not badly, and she is fine.

Nope, the programmers for the two different programs are totally different, Jack. As are the programs. As long as the program continues to sell, it makes no sense to think they will dump it, since they are basically aimed at two different segments of the market. ATX is basically strong with the smaller firms and sole prop independants, while TaxWise's main market is the IRS and chain type businesses. There are plenty of us to keep ATX going strong, and I think that CCH has learned some things from their goofs during the first year. Hey, we all have to keep learning and adapting, because the world itself does change constantly. No one could operate successfully today, using the methods we used in the 70's.

Joel, read my new posting on this subject. Although I can not, [OK, will not] give you the name of my source, he is a programmer for the company, and I do trust his info. I'm going to be renewing based on his word to me. And thank goodness for that, having to learn a new program this year would be a real nightmare to me. Just thinking about it gives me the shivers.

Well, if it's that little, in relation to the rent, I'd have no problem at all with expensing this repair. I would not even bother the client with questions, frankly, for that one. And I know what you mean about renter complaints. That's what got me out of being a landlord.

This is a snippet from an email from a friend who still works for ATX, in program development. It should hopefully reassure those of you who want to stay with the program, but are worried about getting shafted at the last moment. Which I guess is most of us! "I want to assure you that we are truly hard at work this summer trying to improve our product. We have a team of tax managers that spend the summer analyzing the forms that they are responsible for, considering improvements to the forms (many of these suggestions come from our users), and working with developers to implement the improvements. Contrary to what you might hear, we really do listen to our customers. I was an ATXer long before I came to work here, and I'm as frustrated as everyone else with some of the changes that CCH has made. However, there are exciting things in the future coming as well, and I personally feel that those who hang in there with us will have a better product in hand. Finally, in case you are wondering, CCH is very happy with both our product and our sales and renewal numbers. They are solidly behind the ATX product line. Of course, a mass exodus could change all that, but things are really looking good for now, in spite of this year's problems. There are still a lot of competent, caring people in customer support; they're just different competent, caring people. This year was a zoo while they were trying to learn a new program on the fly, but they did a wonderful job in a very trying situation. Unfortunately, the outcry of the bad is much louder than the good. The good news is that the dust has now settled, and I doubt that we will be bought out again anytime soon."

The 60 day limitation is, I believe, only on rollovers that go through the t/p's hands. Since this was trustee to trustee, most of the money was never in the clients hands, except for the amount shown as paid into the IRS [and state?] as withheld. Your client has a good court case against the financial institution that screwed this up. The intent of Code Section 408A(d)(6), as enacted, was to permit a taxpayer who had converted an amount held in a non-Roth IRA to a Roth IRA and later discovered that his modified AGI for the year of conversion exceeded $100,000 to correct the conversion by retransferring the converted amount to a non-Roth IRA. The regulations interpret Code Section 408A(d)(6) liberally to provide broad relief to taxpayers who wish to change the nature of an IRA contribution (and not only to allow taxpayers to correct Roth IRA conversions for which they were ineligible). Moreover, the regulations make application of Code Section 408A(d)(6) elective by the taxpayer and permit the taxpayer to recharacterize all or any portion of an IRA contribution. Reg. Section 1.408A-5, Q&A-1(a). Thus, the regulations provide that in accordance with Code Section 408A(d)(6), except as otherwise provided, if an individual makes a contribution to an IRA (the first IRA) for a taxable year and then transfers the contribution (or portion thereof) in a trustee-to-trustee transfer from the trustee of the first IRA to the trustee of another IRA (the second IRA), the individual can elect to treat the contribution as having been made to the second IRA, instead of to the first IRA, for federal tax purposes. The regulations provide examples that illustrate the application of the recharacterization rules described above. These examples are set forth in Reg. Section 1.408A-5, Q&A-10.

The K-1, with GP for the amounts they had to pay them, was my first choice, too, Tom. Only if they operated totally under their own Sch C EIN would I use the 'subcontractor' route. But I would do that if I thought I had no other option, and I would not let payroll issues be a factor, since they have the court case to prove that those people considered themselves entitled to a share of revenue. And that is an indicator of self employment, not a position that would support the 'employee' argument. At least, that is my thinking on it.

I'm guessing, from the fact that the building itself is already fully depreciated, that this was a repair of old or broken cabinets. And also, because it is a rental, odds are that it was not a full 'remodel' of the kitchen, or Joan would be talking about a lot more than just 'cabinets'. Given those two things, I'd certainly go for expensing the cost. But only Joan knows how much $$$ we are talking about, and that, and how it relates to the rental income, is what we would need to know to make a final decision. If we are talking about $3000 worth of cabinets, in a house that rents for $2000 a month, for example, that, to me, says 'REPAIR' very loudly. But if it rents for $200 a month, that might tend more to capitalization. And if the cost of the cabinets was $15,000, that also would at least tend toward capitalization. Even so, if it was only replacing cabinets, I'd go for 7 years, not 27.5, as fixtures.

There had to be some documentation of the new business, because towns want Privilege tax, payroll records need to be reported, etc. If that was all done only under the original numbers, there should still be some numbers in the files on the other people. If there is not any way to get SSNs now, then I would still file 1099s for them, as 'subcontractors', using 'refused' in the box for SSN. But I bet that somewhere they have some paperwork where they have those numbers, because the other couple had to have some way to prove in court that they had a right to some of the income. Look to the court records, talk to the attorney your clients used, etc.

No, that would not change the answer, except that they would have to recapture that one month of depreciation.

Well, much as I would like to say use 5 years, cabinets are not like appliances, they are attached to and become part of the building itself. The thing is, if it is a repair, which is normal in many rental properties, then it can be expensed. If it is a major change, like a total kitchen remodel, then it has to be capitalized. But just replacing old or broken cabinets with similar new cabinets, would, IMHO, be a repair, not an upgrade.