BulldogTom

That is funny. Tom Hollister, CA

I actually interviewed for a position with them at one time (long time ago). The customer support was located in Tracy CA. Seemed like a robust enough 1040 software the last time I looked at it, but it did not have all the PR, 1099, 571L features that came with ATX. This was about 4 years ago I think when I looked at it. Salesmen actually came to my office. One thing is, they have a lot of retail customers. You know the car dealerships that will do your taxes and use your refund as the down payment? Check cashing services that do taxes. Customers like that. I thought it was competing with me, so that turned me off as well. Not sure if there is a viable market for those services anymore with the testing and regulations that have come down in the last few years. But Crosslink used to play in that market. I think they also look in on this board. Tom Hollister, CA

Seriously dilusional liberal drivel. Seriously! Reagan not conservative enough? Seriously? Taxed must be from Colorado. He has been smokin' something. Probably partied with a guy named Barry in Hawaii back in the day. Killed the few intelligent brain cells he might have possessed at one point in his life. Now he just spouts off Mainstream Media blather. YUK. Just like something greasy and dirty that you don't want to even look at. Tom Hollister, CA

You can't fight revisionist history from the libs. They live their lies. The also love their lies. "If you pass this stimulus package, unemployment will not go above 8%" - President Obama, 2009. Liar, liar, pants on fire. "These are shovel ready jobs" - President Obama, 2009 (oops, 141 billion went to state employees to pay off unions for their 2008 support. When the money was gone, so were the jobs). Liar liar pants on fire.

Proof that idiot libs can't read sarcasm. Nuff said. Tom Hollister, CA

I wonder if the Boston Terrorists got EITC. We know at least 100K of their Jihad was funded by Welfare. One was in school too, so I bet the AOC funded the Jihad as well. Using the post-9/11 logic, wouldn't it make sense to subject these weapons of terrorism to increased scrutiny? Like we did with airline travel. How about we set up a TSA like agency to screen all the tax returns for credits that might be used in terrorism. We could have them demand that we take off our shoes while they screen our tax returns. Do full DNA tests to prove the relationships claimed by taxpayers to their dependents. Of course, we would have to subject everyone to this scrutiny because we could not just go after Muslims. That would be an afront to the libs. Tom Hollister, CA

Back in January, I ordered the free 2013 1099 INT forms from the IRS. They arrived today. Whooo-hooooo! Tom Hollister, CA

You brainwashed frikkin liberal. I don't watch fox news. What a dumb a$$ comment. Your ignorance of who and what I am is only exceded by your pompus arrogance. Tom Hollister, CA

Well, I think I said this before, but here goes again. I can actually see some good coming from this software. I think they are on the right track with what they are trying to do. But like the three stooges, they just can't seem to get it done the right way. Their support system is now a joke, and that is very sad, because in the days of Maine, no matter what the problems with the software, they had competent people to work on and fix the issues. Now they have a bunch of KB readers. I am going to see what transpires over the summer. I like the all inclusive package that MAX gives me for the price. I don't do a lot of Corps or Partnerships, but I have a few. I also do some PR reporting at the end of the year for a few of my clients, as well as 1099's. I don't pay a lot to get those features. The speed issue is getting acceptable, but not good. I think they will get that worked out. Most of the forms and calculations seem to be coming through properly now. There are some annoyances still, but in general, it seems to be working out OK. I can live with slow speed for the time being. I want to use some of the print functions next year. That was a huge disappointment that there seems to be a way to make some real progress towards what was a weakness in the old version of the software. It ain't there yet, but if it does get there, I think the print function could be a real winner in the future. I am learning to use the software and getting around most of its quirks. I did that in the old software, too. I am willing to go one more year. If it works out, good for me. If not, I will re-evaluate. But I will not re-up until the last minute. Tom Hollister, CA

You are the one who brought skin color into the discussion. You associated predudice against EIC recipients as racism, fanned by Republican states and right wing talk shows. Well, I am a Republican and I am further right than most of my neighbors in this beautiful screwed up state. What I am not is racist. I have eaten tortillas off the back of a truck tailgate in the strawberry fields of Watsonville with some of the hardest working, kindest, brown skinned, beautiful people in the world. Most of them illegal. And I think they should have to go back because they broke the law. I see all races come into my office and go through the same EITC checklist for all of them. I try to treat every person based on the creed of Martin Luther King Jr. "to see not the color of their skin, but the content of their character". I don't believe poverty or social status gives anyone the "right" to break the law. And I don't think the law should see color in anthing they do. What ticks me off is the liberals who need to push color in my face at every opportunity. I remember one year being very excited to see a Monday Night Football game. The high powered offense of the Minnesota Vikings in the Randy Moss era were playing the ferrocious defense of the Tampa Bay Buccanneers led by Warren Sapp. On paper, this should have been the game of the year. What did I get when I turned it on....Al Michaels going on and on about how it was a historic night because it was the first time in NFL history that 2 black coaches and two black starting quarterbacks were in the game. What the hell.....two great teams, regardless of color, with two great coaches (Tony Dungy and I forget the other guys name, but he made history with his post game speech in Arizona) were playing that night. Did liberal Al talk about defense, offense, coaching strategy? NO. It was all about the history of the night. It got so bad that I turned it off. So don't put your liberal crap out there that Republicans and right wingers like me are racist. I am American. Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't need some liberal know it all to tell me that my political affiliations and views make me racist. That is BS, and you should apologize for your remarks. (I doubt you will, because you liberals only see offense when it is you pointing it out, you never see your own racist tendencies). Tom Hollister, CA

You know taxed, I have been reading your liberal drivel for a couple weeks now, and it really irks me. I live in CA, the most liberal state in the nation. And I am really offended by the notion you liberals put out there that somehow because I think it is a constitutional right to bear arms, because I believe in hard work and a hand up, not a hand out, and because I am affiliated with the republican party, that I am some kind of racist. That is bull........ You don't know me. I take offense at the broad brush you paint me with. Tom Hollister, CA

Notice that the insert has a price for "Payroll" and "Payroll Tax Compliance" modules? If you read the MAX description, it still has "Payroll Tax Compliance" included as part of the package. I wonder for how long? Tom Hollister, CA

Hence the opening letters of the post - NT. Stands for "Not Tax". Tom Hollister, CA

Borrowing from my own list, this is the conversation that has been going around Washington lately and getting no real press. Should the President of the United States have the power of execution of American Citizens in foreign lands when he believes they are enimies of the state? Should the President have the power to order the execution of American Citizens on American soil when he believes they are enimies of the state? I have a real problem with this one. I know we need to protect our borders and our people, but being an American Citizen should still guarantee the basic rights of the constitution, regardless if I am in another country or not. Even the worst of US Citizens should get the right to a trial. Granting the President the power to secretly declare you an enemy of the state and allowing him to order your execution via drone strikes just seems to be the tipping point of saying we have no rights. And I don't want G-dub or BO to have that power. We have gone to a place that makes me very uncomfortable with the laws that were passed in the wake of 9/11 to expand the powers of the government. Tom Hollister, CA

Who do you want enforcing that freedom, and how much freedom are you willing to cede to them to protect your freedom? My son has a quote that he picked up in an American History class that went something like this: "He who would trade liberty for security deserves neither". I don't know who said that, but it has some wisdom in it. Tom Hollister, CA

Late to the conversation. There are 2 real issues here that all of you are dancing around, but not saying directly: 1. What is the definition of a "free society"? 2. What limits are we going to allow the government to place on "free individuals"? Everything you argue on both sides comes down to this. The framers of the constitution came from a time of government tyranny. They understood that an all powerful government would excercise that power over "free" individuals if allowed to. Therefore, they placed limits on the excercise of control over the people by the government. Over time, we have realized that "free" people in a "free society" will take advantage of that freedom to the detriment of other "free peoples". Government has stepped in and enacted laws limiting the freedoms of all with the idea of betterment of "free society" for all. In general, most of those laws were well intended and agreed to by society as a whole. Laws against murder, rape, theft, mayhem, arson, etc with the associated punishments for breaking those laws are pretty much universally accepted. Today, we look at most of the laws that are passed or proposed, and we see a shift in their intent. Most laws today are proactive in nature - they intend to change behaviors or force the behaviors to come about that the goverment wishes to obtain. All in the name of the "betterment" of society. It seems to me that every one of the laws passed in the last 2-3 decades in some way takes more and more of the "freedoms" from the "free peoples" of the society. Today, most look to government to determine all the rules of society, with factions pushing for their agendas of what "free peoples" can do in a "free society". As these laws have passed, the "need" for goverment to enforce and regulate increases, to the point that (check me on this) about 17% of the society is employed by the government. Another 15-20% rely on the government for their livelyhood through direct government payments (social security, welfare, medicare, medicade, unemployment, disability). As the government gets more and more control over the livelyhood of these individuals, they can enforce more and more behaviors that the government wishes to obtain from the people. This is really what we are talking about in this entire thread. Do we as a "free society" and "free peoples" want to concede our "freedoms" to the government to regulate more of our actions in a "free society"? At what point do we limit the power of the government to regulate our lives in this "free society"? Everything else is just details in the argument. But it comes down to the question "Do I want the government to have the authority to make this decision about the interactions of the "free people" of this "free society" and regulate their actions"? We could use this same discourse not only for this thread, but every social issue that comes up, such as: Should Government mandate the purchase of health insurance? Should Government mandate the purchase of auto insurance? Should Government mandate the level of retirement savings? Should Government allow the marriage of people of the same gender? Should Government define marriage? Does Government have the right to outlaw a religeous conviction. Does Government have the right to force acceptance of an action that is contrary to a religeous conviction? Should Government regulate the content of television transmissions? Should Government outlaw the ownership of handguns? Should Government be allowed the right to tax the income of individuals? and at what rate? Should Government be allowed to put to death those who violate the laws it passes? Should the President of the United States have the power of execution of American Citizens in foreign lands when he believes they are enimies of the state? Should the President have the power to order the execution of American Citizens on American soil when he believes they are enimies of the state? Should the Government allow the breaking of immigration laws in the name of human rights? Is the Government responsible for the education of our children? Is the Government responsible for the health of all of its citizens? Is the Government required to feed every person in the US? Is it the sole responsibility of the Government to determine the uses of private land? Is it the sole responsibility of the Government to "protect" the environment and determine the uses of all land, minerals, and water in country regardless of the ownership of those assets? Are the Governmental goals of the state of the "free society" higher than the individual "freedoms" of the "free peoples of the society"? I am sure you could add a bunch more, but I think you get the point. What is Freedom these days? Tom Hollister, CA

I have an "EIC Idea". The Feds should dump EIC payments on the states. Make the individuals go to the welfare department with their tax return and apply for the EIC payments. Feds reimburse the state or pay directly to the individuals after state certification. State welfare will have a better handle on who lives where, who is getting what government assistance payments, etc. The state welfare system is a better place to document and approve these payments. It also takes it out of the Tax system and puts it in the welfare system where it belongs. Should also allow for easier transmission of information between 50 states and the Feds rather than 100,000 preparers and the Feds. Finally, the Feds can then use this as a stimulus measure and release the checks at the time of the year they want to for maximum effect on the economy. How much you want to bet they will release them before the election? Just my 2 cents. Tom Hollister, CA

I worked for a farmer who had his office burned down by a disgruntled mentally unstable homeless man. The fire happened before I came to work for him. The prior office manager was very good about making backups every day. She sat them right on top of the server when she was done. The story goes that when the fire was discovered, she came down to the ranch office and the shed manager was there already. The building was engulfed in flames. She asked the shed manager to go in and get the backup tapes! Took almost 2 years to get everything straightened out. I came in in the middle of it. Vendors were sending tons of past due invoices. Just getting the check register rebuilt took 6 months. Payroll and payroll taxes were a nightmare. Make sure you have an off site backup. Tom Hollister, CA

That is interesting. I never saw it presented that way. Tom Hollister, CA

They are already storing them. How else would they be able to offer you the prior two years? Don't pay unless you have a failure, then call them up and buy the service. Tom Hollister, CA

I don't know anything about it KC. Sorry. Tom Hollister, CA

I smell total mess coming: So, taxpayer goes to IRS site on January 15th and files. Big refund and EITC. Then, the other information is filed with the IRS for the job they forgot about, and the stock options they excercised. Taxpayer gets a huge bill that they can't pay, and the IRS has to be both the "paid preparer" and the prosecutor for the taxpayer. Will the IRS be subject to penalties for not asking all the questions and obtaining the documentation for EIC? Should they have known or did they ask the taxpayer all the relevent questions? Wouldn't they be subject to gross negligence penalties? Go government. Get me some more business. Tom Hollister, CA

Christian, Do you know you can edit your posts when you make a spelling error? You don't have to post a second time. Go to the original post and click edit and make your spelling corrections. Unless you are trying to get to "supreme master" or "Grand Poo Bah" status on your profile. Tom Hollister, CA

And herein lies the problem. Only employers with more than 250 employees need to report the DD right now. What to do with an employee who works for a company not required to report? And I know a lot of companies over 250 are not up to speed on the reporting. I work for one and we didn't get this dialed in until a couple of weeks ago (I did not start working here until late december, so I can blame my predicessor. I got it fixed eventually). This is going to drive us nuts. I have a lot of clients that will qualify for the subsidies if they figure out how to apply for them. I am really concerned that this is going to slam us in 2 years. Tom Hollister, CA

The mandate is effective Jan 1, 2014. Therefore, when the 2014 return is filed in 2015, we will be calculating the penalty. My question is how they will account for the subsidies that are supposed to come with it. If I understand this correctly, the subsidies go to the insurance company for reducing the cost of the insurance. So the taxpayer never really gets the money, just a lower cost policy. Then, after the year is complete and the income for the year is actually reported, the subsidy has to be repaid if you did not qualify for as much as you thought when you signed up for it. Not sure how all this is going to play out, but I have a feeling the 2014 tax year is going to be a mess. I would really like anyone who is more up on this to chime in. I have been getting this in bits and pieces and "I don't know what I don't know" about this new tax law. That is the scary part. If I know that I don't know enough about Like Kind Exchanges, Offers in Compromise, Sub S health insurance, or anything like that, I have a good idea where to go to find out about it. I know what I do know and I have a good idea about what I don't know, but I know where to go to find out if I need to know something new for one of my clients. I am totally bewildered about ACA. Tom Hollister, CA