joanmcq

Wrong Jack, OldJack. I was referring to Jack from Ohio. He weighed in as an unregistered preparere.

Don't get snarky. I simply wanted to know how much y'all do voluntarily. Now, I've already said, that board members, and especially those like you, Jack, and Catherine, who are on here all the time, are knowledgeable and care about their profession. Not everyone out there is you. Trust me, there are a lot of folks out there that haven't got a clue as to what they are doing. Now, they won't be able to 'go underground' easily because they won't be able to efile. No efile, no RAL, RAC or other bank products, and no quick refund from direct deposit. One difference though, is that you, Jack & Catherine, haven't been under the restrictions of Circular 230. Now the playing field is a bit leveled. And anyone that hasn't enough tax smarts to pass part one of the test, won't be able to prepare anything. And if you can't pass part 2, no business returns. Don't either of you see this as a business generator?

It's not going to catch the 'invisible' ones, but create greater penalties for those 'invisible' preparers. And they do get caught. Someone who gets busted for a fraudulent 'self-prepared' return will turn pretty quickly on their preparer. I've seen it happen. What this will do is put the signing tax services under Circular 230 and its penalties and restrictions. And force them (if they want to keep their businesses) to become competent or get out of the business. The audit I spoke of earlier WAS a signed return, from a preparer that had an office (not home-based). There are a lot of businesses out there. Current unlicensed preparers on this board: How much CPE do you get a year? Do you take an update class each year? How many hours is it?

OldJack; I am independent and I have always been under Circular 230. I don't see where there will be a change for me at all; I do audit representation, and I represent my clients. If a prospective client has no case, I don't take them on or just advise them to pay the bill and instruct them on tax law. This is what I've always done. If it is truly a grey area, I can take the case to appeals and argue there. I have just won some very grey area cases. I don't tend to be an 'aggressive' preparer. If there is truly a gray area, I can instruct the client as to the issues and let them decide if they want to be more aggressive or not, and I can also instruct them as to the possible consequences. When someone wants to take a position I am not comfortable with, I will not prepare the return. The change will be that all the formerly unregulated preparers will also come under Circular 230 and be forced to the same standards I have had to operate under. I see it as leveling the playing field somewhat. I am no more or less regulated than I was before. Just $64.25 poorer.

Let's see Jack....the fact that there IS a test, and there IS a CPE requirement (even if not assessed immediately; a fact of which is more to the current preparers, ie, people with a PTIN already having to step up to the new standards immediately rather than at least having a grace period). With the whining about this requirement (much less than a CPA or EA is subject to), could you see the brouhaha that would result if every preparer was required to be an EA or CPA or attorney? Catherine, there HAS been an education campaign regarding bad preparers. But to be educated about a preparer, you have to 1. read, 2. be interested in the subject, and 3. care. Look how hard it has been to shut down the 'tax relief' OIC mills? Roni Deutsch is still on TV, as are most of the rest of them, promising stuff they can't deliver, if they even try to. Oregon & California have been the only states to regulate preparers for years. A few more like NY & MD recently passed legislation. But the tax forms being prepared are not just state forms. Why shouldn't the federal government regulate who is allowed to prepare federal taxes? As a CPA, I am still regulated by the state of CA. The AICPA lobbying did manage to get us excepted. The only thing that changes for me (and you, OldJack) is paying a $64.25 fee, which I see as the price to get the currently unlicensed people up to a slight par with me.

Thank you Jainen. I'm going to bet there was a lot of complaining when W-2s were first introduced too. And 1098s. And k-1s. Oh, and BTW, I have seen deductions denied in audit due to lack of 1099s. Especially if paid in cash. Even if by check, how do you prove that check to Joe Smith was for services for the business, or for a (personal use)used boat you bought off of him? Oh yeah, our clients never ever pay for personal stuff through the business account. On the flipside, the easiest way of getting through an audit of something like contractor payments is to submit copies of the 1099s. The auditor will make sure they were actually filed, but that's generally all. So now let's imagine an audit of 'supplies'. Instead of having to provide a pile of receipts and cancelled checks and/or bank statements, our clients just have to show the 1099s. Wow! Imagine that! This new requirement having an upside!

Tax preparation has been about the ONLY profession that, in most of the country, required no licensing, no standards, no competency, no nothing. I am really, really sick of the whining that has been going on. We have access to peoples financial data for chrissakes! Errors on our part, caused by fraud or ignorance or just plain sloppiness can cause our clients untold problems. Yet we have not had even minimal standards to enter our profession???? I am just finishing up an audit of someone who went to one such preparer. They trusted the preparer to do their taxes correctly; in fact started having their taxes 'professionally' prepared because they started a business. Regulation may not be able to prevent this entirely, but if testing keeps just some of these quacks from entering or continuing in our field, we should be all for it. A lot of you have been preparing taxes for a long time with no oversight. You may be competent. You may take continuing education, and care to do returns correctly and keep up with the law. In fact, your presence on this board speaks for that. But would YOU trust a preparer that has been 'doing this for 35 years' that has not kept up with tax law to do your return? Would you trust a doctor that hadn't had to do CPE and keep up with advances in medical knowledge? I agree licensing will not keep all the bad apples out of the profession. I get a quarterly bulletin from my state Board of Accountancy that reports all of the sanctioned CPAs that have been criminal or incompetent, their penalties and offenses. Licensing does not in and of itself make for integrity or competence. But it helps. The threat of losing one's livlihood can do a lot to keep one honest, if nothing else. $64.25 is not a lot of money. I pay a lot more to have a business license, a CPA license, and E&O insurance. Not to mention CPE. And I'm paying that in addition to those other fees. If you complainers are know your stuff, passing a test should not be difficult. The incompetents and fraudsters leaving our profession should increase our business enough to cover that cost. I think a lot of you are just using this as an excuse to bitch about the government, and would bitch no matter what the circumstances. Get over it.

I love my iPhone. you can also tap the screen to make the font larger. BTW, I have the lower (2MB) download plan, and have had no problems with overusage. I don't download movies (who wants to watch a movie on an iPhone anyways??), so checking email, weather, stocks, & general netsurfing is fine with the smaller plan. And I'm usually on WiFi, rather than 3G at home.

NOT for a 401(k). That exemption is only for IRAs. That's why you first roll it into an IRA, then take a distribution for qualified post-secondary education.

If she rolls it over, there is no penalty if withdrawn for higher education costs. if she's that broke, why not save $300?

64 bit is the future. I always buy as beefy a computer as I can afford since I don't like to upgrade too often. And I agree with Windows 7 pro, and as much memory as you can jam in the thing. Quad core too.

Ok, first of all there WILL be a CP notice. and with a 210k early distribution, hoo-wee! can we say penalties & interest??? Second, the only reduction I can see is if they they qualifed for one of the exceptions to the penalty, like higher education expenses. With 210k, I really can't see medical being available. Medical insurance paid while unemployed? Rolled over to another IRA, like maybe one of those idiotic self-directed IRAs? With a balance that high, the IRA had to have contained some rolled over contributions from another retirement plan. A pension where taxable amounts had been contributed? The preparer would have had to get some pretty detailed basis calculations for that one. Non-deductible contributions from way, way back? BTW, all IRA 1099-Rs will be 'taxable amount not determined'. The custodian has no way of knowing if a contribution was deducted or not, and therefore if there is any basis. It is up to the taxpayer to keep track of basis and file the 8606s.

the market was only starting the run up in 2002. Not as unusual as you think. And non-foreclosures usually go for more; the properties are in better condition with no nasty surprises.

I have one client who died. I got a message from her daughter to this fact, but she never called back. Another, all I need is charitable contributions. My 6 year non-filer did bring me the stuff a month ago, but I was backed up with another 6 year non-filer that contacted me in April and I've been struggling with the Forms 5471 all summer. And then there is the C-corp that doesn't book the draws and hasn't filed W-2s....but I don't even have their file yet, and won't do it until I review their QB and clean it up completely. And have the come-to-jesus talk about taking salary.

I think I might be able to do AJEs to transfer all the entries from credits to debits. I'll try at least. I gotta say, at least the screwed up QB is better than trying to supervise my roommate in the excel entry project, not to mention the reconstruction of records issue. I hate QB in that it has people THINKING they can do accounting. At least i've spot checked the expense entries and they seem accurate, even if they were all entered as credits instead of debits. Don't people wonder when they are getting P&Ls that show net income as way more than gross reciepts than something might, just might, be a little out of whack? :scratch_head:

Its midnight on what is now October 14th and I'm looking at 4 years of bank statements for a non-filer (at least I've drafted my roommate to put them all into Excel) and two and a half years worth of QB, where all of the expenses are entered as negative deposits, making the balance sheets less than worthless. No inventory kept. I think I can flip around the expense numbers and plug 'em into a Sch C. Sigh. I hate Quickbooks. I thought I'd seen every mistake someone could make, but this one takes the cake.

Thanks for the heads up...I just hit the button to file my own...

The input says to put it on the 6765 where it does show up. This client is making too little income, but this is the first year the company ran a loss, and I expect large amounts of income in the future. She got the shares in her divorce. The instructions to the 3800 are not the clearest, and I was unsure as to my input in ATX. Thanks for replying!

Hey all, I'm clawing up from the dark depths of the complicated crap I'm currently wallowing in! I have a return where the client has a 'increasing research credit' that should flow from the 1120-S K-1 to the Form 3800 (I think). This is the first year she has the S-corp. the S-corp had a loss from biz activities (but some investment income), she does not materially participate, so it is a passive activity, and she has no taxable income on her return. Sigh. I know the credit will be carried forward, but although it is showing up on lines 37 & 38 of the 6765, nothing carries to line 1c of the 3800, nor to the c/f worksheets. Anyone know what I'm doing wrong, if I'm doing anything wrong? Does the form simply show zero, and the c/f worksheets are all that is necessary? :dunno:

Thanks all! Tis a big'un....lets just say my party theme was Hawaii Five-O!

I think it stops at zero.

You need to take the depreciation portion of the SMR for each of the years X the miles driven. If it is more than the business basis in the car, he has gain.

Barracuda is blocking it as spyware. Someone did report malware popping up from their site.

He has to be totally and permanently disabled. Usually if they have received Social Security disability that is enough to win on audit.

They can't dissolve or do business if they owe back taxes, penalties, etc. Not sure how they collect.