JohnH

If any part of the fee can be identified as property taxes, then she may have a deduction for that portion, but if the prior preparer deducted it then he just didn't know what he was doing.

I guess my timing was a little off. I thought it would take hours, but instead it's minutes. Or, as a radio talk show host just stated: "Old Tom flounced out so fast his driver was still in the men's room!"

Interesting twist in the Daschle situation today. He may be forced to withdraw over $950, and Nancy Killefer is the sacrifical lamb. The most recent story is that Nancy Killerfer is going to withdraw her nomination as Chief Performance Officer because she failed to pay $298 in unemployment tax (plus $652 in P&I). Compared to what we've already seen with Geithner & Dashle, her $950 is a drop in the bucket, yet she's withdrawing? She just became the leverage to move Daschle off the front pages. I don't think the Obama people have the guts to ask Daschle to withdraw, and Daschle doesn't know to do the right thing simply because he doesn't have enough integrity to know what the right thing is. That's something that happens often with politicians. So in the next few hours someone is going to sit down with Daschle and says something to the effect that "Look, Nancy withdrew over a $950 honest error, and we've already fallen on our sword for Geithner, so you need to take your name out of consideration for the good of the party."

I have to hand it to The Sun for the best newspaper headline of the day. In reporting the incident in which a protester threw a shoe at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on his final day in Britain yesterday, the British tabloid called The Sun ran a headline which read "Flew Man's Shoe". Those Brits just have a way with words, don't they?

True, but you can look at most sausage and pretty much determine what went into the product when it was being made (if you care to do so). Not so with most legislation - by intention it's a great mystery.

Snow cream is tasty - just don't make it with any of that yellow snow.

They're self-employed (if they want to keep working). I guess they didn't notice that no tax was being withheld on their earnings and didn't know there must be SOME sort of tax that needed to be paid on their income. If they don't care if they get fired and/or never work there again, they can always try an end run with Form 8919 & SS-8, which might save them about 7% (Half the SocSec/SE tax).

The two things nobody wants to see being made are sausage and laws Nobody knows what's going to be in the final legislation, and you'd be making a mistake to speculate. Tell them to keep their eye on the news reports just like you are doing.

jainen said it perfectly.

I don't like the potential liability aspect of it all. If I prepared one, I'd have the client sign lots of paperwork clarifying that they understand the payback requirements and then I'd have to plan to keep all that CYA stuff around for 15-17 years, even if they eventually go somewhere else to get their tax return prepared in future years. If the repayment provisions stay in place, then there are going to be taxpayers who sell their homes or convert them to rentals in the next 4-8-10-12 years and they will conveniently "forget" that they were supposed to pay the remaining balance back. Then a couple of years out when IRS tags them, they'll run for cover by claiming the original preparer never told them about this. When that happens, the preparer will regret it if they don't have all the documentation on hand. Even then it will be a hassle. Anyone who has dealt with the Mortgage Credit Certificates probably knows what I'm talking about. And at least with the MCC's, the taxpayer had to sign paperwork with the lender and the government acknowledging the repayment requirements. With this credit, all the notification responsiblity lies with the tax preparer, who had better have their bases well covered. I'm going to leave that chore to others - I'm just not interested.

If they've already bought a house within the time limits or if they are planning to buy one, then they certainly should take the credit on their return. But if they are thinking about buying just to ge tthe credit, then they should forget it. I'd advise anyone who is eligible for the credit to claim it, and I'll also send them to HRB or JH to get the return filed because I don't intend to put my name on any return claiming the credit. (And I have already given that very advice to one client). Nobody can predict whether future legislation will make it a true credit with no repayment requirement, and if so whether the repayment will be fogiven, but the only advice I'd give them is "there's no way to know what Congress might do."

I'm in Charlotte, NC. 1) James Taylor ("In My Mind I'm Goin' to Carolina") - Guess that would apply to the entire state 2) NASCAR (I'm not a fan, but it amuses me how the local politicians try to downplay its importance because they consider it a redneck sport) 3) Major banking center (although that distinction is rapidly eroding)

It's a good idea to update frequently, especially this time of year. I updated about 11:00 pm last night, then just now updated again and there were a few more forms in this update.

Prior to Aug 11, 1993, goodwill could only be amortized if a useful life could be determined, but the rules changed that year to allow for 15-year amortization under Sec 197. I'm trying to determine whether there was an option once the new rule went into effect. I'm looking at a situation in which the previous preparer simply booked goodwill for a business purchased in Nov 1993 and left it on the balance sheet as an "Other Asset" with no amortization taken. The business closed in 2007 and the return hasn't yet been filed. My question is, was the 15-year amortization mandatory? It matters because I now need to know if only the goodwill for 2 years can be written off in 2007 or if the entire original amount can be written off in 2007. (I probably should know this, but so far I'm drawing a blank)

With all required tax deposits having been paid on time, I think you have until Feb 10 (see page 2 of the following) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i941.pdf

I always tell them I don't agree with it being taxable, but given that the rules are what they are, they should be grateful they have enough income that their SocSec IS taxable. There are plenty of people who don't have that "problem" and they'd gladly trade places if given the chance.

I think this would also be a good time to remind everyone to contribute. (Eric is famous for not asking, but we need to keep in mind that it costs money to keep this forum up & running. In order to put my money where my mouth is, I just made another donation. We like to talk about how valuable our own time is - especially at this time of year - and we need to also acknowledge that his time is valuable as well.)

I was setting up a batch of 1099 forms (about 250 +) to transfer from QuickBooks into ATX today and hit a snag when I discovered the 1099 conversion printer for QB files wasn't available. I called ATX tech support, got right in to the help desk, and the young lady on the phone took me through the process to install it in about 10 minutes. She was very helpful and methodical - we never had to backtrack a single step. She also stayed on the line until I finished the conversion and loaded the file into ATX. All in all a very positive tech support experience. I know several of you have related some bad tech support experiences and I just wanted to mention that there is another side.

I always report it on the 941 and 940 in gross wages, but not in SocSec/FICA. The last thing I do before sending out payroll reports is to verify that the sum of Box 1 of the W-2 forms agrees with the sum of Line 2 of the 941 forms filed for the year, and that that figure appears on line 3 of the 940. ( I also verify that the sum of the W-2 Withholding, SocSec, and Medicare totals proof back to the corresponding lines on the 941's filed for the year.)

Click on "Foms", then "Customize Master Forms" Call up the Client Letter Go to "Return Cover Sheet" tab Modify the appropriate line (s). Go to "Returns" and choose "Save Master", then "Close Masters". (This field could not be changed in the earlier versions of this year's program, but they opened it up about a week ago after some of us complained. So you'll need to be sure you've updated - otherwise it won't work)

OK. Yes, now I see the direct connection base don the original post, although I disagree with your assumptions about how the problem has evolved.

There are plenty of working people who are deserving of welfare - the "working poor" we hear so much about. A comprehensive approach to welfare which would include elements of the EIC would be much more productive in moving people off the welfare rolls and less subject to cheating at all levels. EIC continues to enjoy strong support in Congress simply because it buys votes. Other areas of tax fraud are irrelevant to this discussion. We could always start a separate thread for each and every one of them, but throwing that matter in to th is discussion is nothing but a bad attempt at diversion.

I don't have any problems with the EIC or most other similar forms of welfare for those who are truly in need of public assistance. I just think it should be administered by the department of social services rather than by the IRS via tax preparers and RAL providers..

Don't feel embarrassed about the governor. Based on my experience in local politics many years ago, I'm confident that your governor is the rule rather than the exception. He just has the bad fortune to have been caught speaking graphically about what happens all the time - experienced politicians are generally a little more circumspect in how they discuss routine bribery, payoffs, and special favors. By the way, has anybody heard from Rahm Emanuel lately?

Nothing wrong with nepotism as long as you keep it in the family.