BulldogTom

I like your argument, but I don't think it flies (unresearched - just talking out my butt here). Let me give you another example. I have to go to London on business. I need a passport and a plane ticket. The ticket is deductible. I don't think the passport is. I think the same reasoning applies to the Visa. It only allows you to enter the country, it is not part of the job you are working at (even though it is required). Using your logic, I can deduct the cost of my drivers license if I deliver Dominos Pizza because I have to have that license to drive their vehicles. I don't believe that works, because the drivers license is not specific to that job, even though required. Again, I am just discussing, and I don't have time to research this, so you are free to rip me if I am wrong. Tom Lodi, CA

You bend over backwards? Or was that a rhetorical question? Tom Lodi, CA

Please post your experience. This sounds weird. Like someone who is disbarred from e-file is trying to get some bank products through? But then that is my suspicious mind working overtime. I love Elvis. Tom Lodi, CA

And when I have a big enough client base, I will drop them. But for now, I MUST be a full-service (even if that is bank products) office. Tom Lodi, CA

Right, HRB does not want to put out another product for the military that meets the new lending rate requirements, so they are just not going to offer bank products to the military. I hope this leads to massive protests and lawsuits, causing the whole RAL industry to implode. Disclosure - I offer the damn things because I have to be able to compete, but I don't push them. I really wish we did not have RALs at all. Tom Lodi, CA

I assume that means we will need to login to update our programs (I do this daily), which is how they are going to shove another inconvenience down our throats. I have so damn many passwords that I have them all written down, and what I am going to change them to, on a paper posted next to my monitor. I hope someone steals them and hacks every one of the websites for every bank, credit card, software provider, internet provider, school, utility company, phone company, and computer supplier that I deal with. I even have to login to listen to music on Yahoo! That will teach the buttheads. Big business sucks. Tom Lodi, CA

I don't know who first posted that site on here, but Legalbitstream is a great website and everybody ought to bookmark it. I have had great success with my research using it. Thanks to whoever shared that great website. Tom Lodi, CA

Competition is a good thing, especially for consumers. Besides, if you produced anything good, you would get bought out by "your friends up in Maine" in a heartbeat to keep out the competition. Tom Lodi, Ca

A couple of months ago there was a string where Melvin mentioned he had thought about writing a new tax program. He intimated that he probably could. Some posters on the board went so far as to say they would invest if he were to really attempt it. I am sure it would be a lot of work, but if Melvin ever decided to write a tax program, I would buy it (providing it had all the CA functionality). It is my hope that he would do this, but only Melvin can tell you if it is a potential reality. Tom Lodi, CA

I have come to believe that this will be the new CCH strategy. I think they are going to push everyone into MAX and leave it as the "mid-range" package in the overall product line. Over the next few years (2 maybe?), the "package deals" that we are used to from ATX like 1040 Office will be priced out of the affordable range by reducing features (note the loss of unlimited E-files this year) and then charging big $ to add them back. When you run the math, it will make more sense to buy Max than to get your custom package. Look for more things to come along (CA package with all Sales and Use, Payroll, and Property Taxes perhaps as the next "new bundle for those who don't own Max"?) It makes sense that CCH would keep Profx as the top product line, then Max as the mid-range and mid price full service offering, and UltraTax as the small office (1040 only) product lines. By moving all of ATX's clients into Max, they streamline the product, cut cost of development, increase the $ per customer, and cut the cost of support (only one product to learn). As a business plan, it makes sense. For those of us already on MAX, it is not a big change. For those getting squeezed on the 1040 products, it is going to suck. But the cost of MAX is affordable right now, and it does so much. Who knows what the price will be next year, but I think it is a good deal right now. My 2 cents. Tom Lodi, CA

Not Mike, but let me take a shot at this one. Yes, the expenses would be deductible as business related, 2106, 2% haircut, only if he itemizes. No chance that it can be put on 2006 return if paid in 2007 and going in 2008 (did you really mean 2006 or is that a typo?). But I would approach it in a different way. I would see if the chuch has a way to pay for the trip for him in one of his budget categories. Some churches have Ministry Related Expense plans that re-imburse the pastor for out of pocket expenses. If his church has one, get it reimbursed. If not, see if the church will pay the cost and reduce his budget next year as it relates to his salary/expenses. My 2 cents. Tom Lodi, CA

How old is your client? Did he take some cash? If he took money out of the retirement fund, he will get a 1099R from the 401K administrator at the end of the year. Depending on what his age is will depend on the way the 1099R will be coded. If he is over 59 1/2 it should just show a normal retirement distribution. If he is under 59.5 and none of the exceptions apply, the 1099R will be coded for an early distribution and the 10% penalty will apply. In either case, the distribution will be taxable at ordinary rates. If he did not take any money, just sold some stock within the 401K and replaced it with some other asset (bond fund, other stocks, MM cash account), it is a non-taxable transaction and will have no effect on his income tax return for this year. Hope this helps. Tom Lodi, CA

I hear you. I have spent the last 2 days trying to track down my client's tax return so we can finish the audit. We used to get very good service from the Practitioner Helpline, but that seems to be invaded by the "lumps of flesh" that normally exist on the taxpayer phone lines. I had a very simple question - "Where is my client's tax return? I received a letter 7 weeks ago that said it was going to the local office. Where is it?" Then I got to take a telephone tour of the United States from Atlanta, to Philadelphia, to Ogden, back to the practioner (no)helpline which is somewhere, to Fresno, only to be told that Fresno does not know for sure where the return is, but that they would send a request to some office to call either me or the taxpayer at some point, but that there is no deadline or timeline for them to respond. Tom Lodi, CA

It makes CCH look pretty smart that they bought ATX when 90% plus of the client list they bought is planning to stay. They probably thought it was going to be less retention than that, but hey, with the concentration between the big three providers, they probably figured they would get a fair share to switch to one of their other products anyway. I am still waiting for Melvin to release his software. I want to be the first customer. Tom Lodi, CA

What I really would appreciate is the return of William. Oh where are you sweet Willy? Tom Lodi, CA

Do you have a guilty consience Jainen? I am not worried about my practices, but apparently the new 230 requirements have worried you. I have always been very careful about my tax advice and my interview. I sleep well at night because of it. I am not worried about the new rules. I conduct my business with integrity, and I don't see a need to change my interview because the IRS might look at my practice. I am not afraid. I have nothing to hide. Tom Lodi, CA

I will take the Spidell update as I do every year. Mortgage debt forgiveness is not a law yet, hence not to be fretted over. The Davis Case is still in the courts and we will not be able to do anything with it until the court rules. The RDP mess will be a mess no matter what the Governator signs. I don't think CA will even track down the RDP's who file single anyway. As for the preparer penalties in Cir 230, see my earlier post - I don't worry about that. I don't make mistakes. Tom Lodi, CA

I guess I have seen all of this in previous material so I am not really suprised. But your point is well taken. I have a client who may get the AMT credit, and a client who has a son in college who might get a suprise on the kiddie tax. I have no spousal partnerships, only Schedule C's. And I am ready to prepare a California Domestic Partnership return if it walks in the door. But I don't have to worry about preparer penalties because I never give bad advice and never miss on the tax law. All my clients are honest and every return I prepare is accurate. NO WORRIES - MON! Tom Lodi, CA

Thanks Wayne. That is what I was looking for. Nothing new or earth shaking, mostly just inflation adjustments. The MIP deduction is going to be a pain when the clients don't know it only applies to loans originated in 2007. Tom Lodi, CA

I have been looking around for new laws for 2007 and not really seeing anything. I was wondering if I am missing something. Is this just a real quite year for new tax legislation? Tom Lodi, CA

M M = Melvin the Surfer Tax Dude? M M = Mike the Preacher Tax Dude? You two need to give us a clue as to which one you are. Poor KC can't keep you straight. But I enjoy reading both of your posts. Tom Lodi, CA

CNA for me to!!! Sole Proprietor, spouse employee, some bookkeeping revenue. Got it through a broker called Dimarak out of San Diego (I think). I believe I pay $185. Tom Lodi, CA

KC, I know that, I was trying to be funny - guess it didn't work. Lawyers are usually an easy target for a quick joke. Of course, that does hit a little too close to home for you. Good to see you back on the board. Do you have an update for us? You are in my prayers. Tom Lodi, CA

Did the lawyers have to pay back their Fee for helping their clients defraud the company? That is the more interesting question. Tom Lodi, CA

Mike, I bought my first home under a program similar to what is described by Gene, except it was not a gift but a loan. It was basically a piggyback loan of the 20% down payment. The program was called DAP - Downpayment Assistance Program - and was intended for first time homebuyers. Worked a miracle for us as I was able to buy a new home with good credit and closing costs while I was still a senior in college. It sounds like there is a private group or foundation in SoCal that has attracted the attention of the IRS and your client was linked to them in some way. Has your client bought or sold property in the last couple of years? Is it possible that there is some SS# mix up? Could this group have reported some "creative" items on a closing statement where your client was involved in the transactions? I would advise the client to give you a power of attorney and stay out of any conversation with the IRS for the time being. You talk to the IRS and then advise the client if he needs the services of an attorney or if it is something the client can handle. Something smells - I would tread very lightly through this. And be careful not to make the client's problems your problems. Good Luck. Tom Lodi, CA