Catherine

I'm a member. Price is good, research is also good (the one free question I really like - we get one doozy every year). Unlike many places, their CPE has an "Intermediate" level as well as basic and advanced. Those prices are also reasonable. Some years ago, I went to their summer conference in Philadelphia, and it was the best conference I'd ever gone to. There is also (I forget what they call it) a cut-rate price to include y our co-workers or assistant as a member. Certainly far more bang for your buck than NAEA. I am thinking very hard of NOT renewing that one this year; far more money and I stopped reading their magazine several years back. The freebie benefit of Verifyle is about 1/3 the cost of the NAEA membership, so it's cheaper to pay for that than to get it free.

Our prayers are with you that you all come through Ida with no major problems!

I use Mercer and am happy with policy and price.

Had something like this happen to a client some years ago. We got interest waived because he held (and never cashed) the check - knowing the IRS would want the $$ back. Our stance that he never cashed the check meant he never made use of the funds and so there was no call for interest. But that only has a chance of working if you hold the check.

They may refuse to apply 2019 funds to 2020 and refund those. There's a time limit, and I have no idea if they are paying attention to that (or not) to the regular cut-off times when the backlog is on them.

Of course He does! Have you ever looked at a platypus?

We have plenty of parents who pay the kid's tax from their accounts. As long as the account numbers are valid, the IRS doesn't give a fat hoot. They'll take the funds and apply them to the return. Drake has a page for the client to sign, affirming the routing and account numbers are correct. Might not be a bad idea to use something like that, as proof you were authorized to use Mom's account for kid's tax.

Yes; don't forget that! Plus there is usually a fee (sometimes hefty) for dissolution.

Great starter set of advice for your niece, Tom!

They are both WAY off base and outside of procedure, for all the reasons stated (and probably more). Appeal it, and quote the IRM at them. Sometimes it seems they reject perfectly good OICs just to say the case is closed - as in, off their own personal list of open cases. Appeals generally has more of a clue as well as better authority to over-rule idiot decisions of lower-grade drones. Document everything and make sure you never miss a deadline.

Congratulations, @BulldogTom - may you be VERY happy in the new digs - and may the internet be lightning-fast!

I had a client get about their THIRD letter demanding payment of tax NOT owed - they filed about a week before the UI exclusion. They've actually paid the small amount of tax that was really due, but keep getting auto-letters demanding a lot more, that is NOT owed, and every time they get a new letter they call me in a panic. And I tell them, *again*, that the letters are being sent out by computer and that they don't owe $2K. I am SO sick of this. And there is nothing anyone can do.

The IRS' position will be that THEY should have been paid FIRST, and it that left insufficient funds for other creditors, too bad/so sad with a side dose of tough noogies. They're gonna have to pony up, and they should never have paid off the other creditors first. They could have gotten other creditors to take a percentage of what was owed - happens all the time when there are insufficient funds in an estate for full payment - but they'll never get money back.

From the kiddie campfire song: "The nearest branch was ten feet up; I'd have to jump and trust my luck... I missed that branch away up there... Now don't you fret; now don't you frown - I caught that branch, on my way DOWN!"

Return transcript from the IRS isn't available?

Toddlers, puddles, and sprinklers - a wonderful mix, always!

I always like to be next-to-last to install any update, to make sure all the problems have been fixed first!

Frankly, even 222 from tax pros isn't nearly the issue that breaches from places like LinkedIn and many, many, many other sources are responsible for (including banks, retailers, and financial institutions). Yes, preparers need to take extreme levels of care - and the low number of instances underscores that the vast majority are being very careful indeed. Rather than getting all hot under the collar, I'd recommend that we all review our data security protocols, and make sure our cyberinsurance is up to date!

The error turned out to be a combination of poorly worded instructions on the Drake page and wrong information sent by the client. I could have figured out one or 'tother, but the two together flummoxed me.

You GO, Mrs @BulldogTom! Beautiful job. Tom, you must be tickled pink. Red. Bulldog-colored. Whatever - tickled silly; how's that! And obviously proud of her gorgeous job and all her hard work. She must love you a bunch.

You are NOT a piece of paper with concentric rings, hanging from a small clip, downrange with a safe backstop. You're safe from me! Despite the snarky comment about altitude.

No worries, @Gail in Virginia - real targets hang from little clips in front of a safe backstop.

Look at the core strength, too - holding those little legs way out in front above the couch. How many of us could do that? (Or laugh that freely and joyously at wonderful silly things like ripping paper.)

Ooooh, a little gun symbol on my avatar - now THAT would be fun! @Abby Normal, you are SO right on this.

So now I have to post just to see if I have a shield... Pout; no shield.