JohnH

It may also do some nasty things to your computer while it's trying to sort out how to install itself. Not worth the risk, IMO. In the tech orld we live in today, "compatibility" means lots of different things to different people. That's why they hide behind vague words rather than just saying "Yes, it will work." It brings enough ambiguity to the conversation to keep them off the hook. I still have an active computer running Win 98 just for situations like this. I won't let it near an internet connection, which means there are some forms it can't produce because it can't update, but it's there for the majority of the "prior year" situations I might encounter.

It might be quicker & less stressful to resurrect an old machine (or buy one really cheap from a computer store), and dedicate it to running older software on those rare occasions when it's needed.

Yep, that did it. Amazing how it works when we fill in all the forms... Thanks

I'm running a preliminary on a return with a Roth Conversion from a Traditional IRA. Taxpayer is over 59-1/2 and wants to pay the tax on the entire distribution in 2010. (No splitting between years) I entered the amount in Box 1 & 2a of the 1099-R input screen. Checked the IRA/SEP/SIMPLE box and entered Code 7 in Box 7. Then under the "Conversions from Traditional SEP, etc" section I checked the box and enter the total converted amount in the blue box to the right. However, when I look at page 1 of the 1040, the total shows up in 15a but not in 15b. Now if I go back and change the entry in the blue box to -0-, at all shows up on 15b as it's supposed to. I can live with the entry if that's what it takes to get the figure on the 1040, but what's the deal here? It seems to be operating in exactly the opposite manner from what it says. Can anybody tell me what I'm doing wrong based on the above info? Thanks.

"Explore the upper limits of their fee tolerance..." Now I really like that! I plan to put it to good use.

I understand where your frustration comes from. But on the other hand if we share this info, then it might give each of us some benchmarks when negotiating next year, whether with ATX or with another vendor. I suppose in a perfect world, everybody would pay exactly the same price for the same product. But that isn't the world we actually inhabit, so we individually need to gain as much info as possible and then use it wisely. And on those occasions when I'm inclined to think I've been treated unfairly in what I paid for something I need or want, I always turn to Matthew 20:1-16 to regain my perspective. (As jainen pointed out on a similar thread on this forum last year) Your comment about company rules regarding revealing one's pay reminds me of the sign on the time clock when I worked for A&P Supermarkets as a teenager. It said something to the effect that what you earn is between you and the company and should never be discusseed with anyone. Right below it, someone stuck a note that said "Don't worry. I wouldn't dare tell anyone what A&P pays me because I'm just as ashamed of it as you are."

If payroll tax reports have been filed, then his W-2 is correct (if it agrees with the payroll tax reports & records). I'll be interested in hearing if anyone else has a different opinion based on this new information. He and the corp are two separate entities, and the 50% ownership doesn't change that fact. (Although it may be used against him if they get to the trust fund penalty phase. But that probably doesn't matter since you already said he signs on the company bank accounts and is aware of the underpayment). Since he already knows the Trust Fund Penalty is hanging out there, he should be taking steps to mitigate it by seeing that payments from the corp are deginated to cover Trust Fund withholdings first. There's a very specific procedure for how this is done. Otherwise, he's facing a snowball effect down the road. In any event, I probably wouldn't prepare the return. And I'd be sure he understood that any input I provided to him can, may, might be changed by IRS when they get their hooks in him.

You said that the payroll taxes haven't been paid, but have the payroll tax reports been filed? These are two separate but very important issues related to the validity of his w2 form. If the payroll tax reports have been filed without the payroll taxes having been paid, I think he is ok with respect to filing his personal return. But if the payroll tax reports have not been filed, he has multiple problems signing the return. And I agree, I probably would not prepare the return except in very unusual circumstances. In any case, unless the payroll taxes are paid, at some point he's looking at a Trust Fund Penalty assessment when it all winds down.

I'd probably charge him the same this year as I would have charged him if he had come back last year - just the normal annual increase for a continuing client.

Good negotiating, KC. You did better than I did. I finally decided on ATX on Dec 20, 2010 and paid $973 total ($904 plus the $69 processing fee) for MAX. I was prepared to jump to Drake, but the final price kept me on board.

SSA has accepted black & white W2 (Copy A) and W3 forms for many years. There will be no danger of penalties for submitting W2 & W3 printed in black ink on standard white paper, provided you use software which is approved (such as ATX). IRS, however, still requires that 1099 & 1096 forms be printed on the red drop-out forms. There is a potential $50 per form penalty if this instruction is not followed.

W2 Copy A and W3 can be submitted to SSA on plain paper in black & white. 1099 and 1096 must still be submitted to IRS on red paper. (If either of the above is submitted electronically, color of the electrons doesn't matter)

I noticed that MAX did an update again this afternoon. Current version is 2010.2.15

So instead of $200 being withheld, there's something on the order of $100 or so withheld. Nothing to worry about here. And given that IRS is delaying processing some returns until Feb, if the employee is an itemizer then they have already received part of their refund early. Or if they owe, the small difference would not by itself trigger an estimated tax penalty. Tell the employer to forget about it and move on.

Approximately how much was the bonus?

I know it seems funny to you, but I see it as smart business. The situattion is radically different. 1) People who aren't familiar with the skills necessary for driving on snow and ice. 2) Not enough equipment to adequately clear the main roads. I've lived in both environments, and I'll gladly put up with the inconveniences caused by one or two snowstorms. I don't want government wasting money to maintain equipment that would only be used a couple of times a year, if that much. What we get in exchange is lower taxes and beautiful weather most of the time. Most of our snow will be melted by week's end and it will return to mild & sunny, while the New England states will still be shivering from the same storm, possibly for weeks. Pretty good trade-off IMO.

I think they're handling this situation very well. My daughter works for a company which faces almost identical challenges as ATX, and their contingency planning is usually very similar to what ATX is doing. I've always admired how they mobilize for the few snow days we experience in this part of the country.

The very first thing I'd do is obtain a statement of earnings from Social Security Admin. You want to know exactly what has been credited to the client's account. I don't think the employee can be held accountable for the employer & accountant's errors, but depending upon the amount involved and/or how badly the employee wants to keep working for this person, it could get sticky. If the emplyment ceases, my response would be that obtaining the SocSec statement would be a prerequisite for doing anything (assuming the emplyees is ultimately willing to do something in the way of reimbursement). Something does seem a little odd here, but until you have all the facts you really can't offer any advice or opinions.

Eric: I appreciate what you said and I agree with much of it. As a matter of fact, the greatest criticism of Bush among conservatives was that he went along with too much free spending. But IMO that was somewhat offset by the fact that his administration did manage to maintain an unexpected level of security in the aftermath of 9/11. (a MUCH better record than his successor, although its also true that any determined enemy will keep probing until they find the weak spots) As for the picture, it's a fact that some free spenders are worse than others, so I'll stand by my original post. And this particular free spender was hard at it during both administrations. I was elated to see it, and I look forward to many more signs being changed in the next election. And we need to keep changing signs on all sides of the aisle until we get it right. :)

I sure did my part to help get it down, as well as most of my family. There's still MUCH to be done, though.

I learn something every day, much of it from this forum. Thanks, KC.

Just wish I could say "I'm the guy in the blue uniform shirt holding the drill."

For anybody who's offended, all I can say is "You were warned in the title - 4 times".

51 cents per mile for business miles driven 19 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations Here's the link: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=232017,00.html

You might want to update more frequently as well, especially during these early days. I've updated three times in the past two hours, and each update contained a full screen of forms on the update manager listing. Each individual update moved fairly quickly, but I'm thinking it would have gone much slower if I only updated once. Like gail & Mike, I just keep everything updated even though I only use a few states.