JohnH

That was a good one. Also, remember what to say to her boyfriend when she's old enough to start dating: "I'd be really unhappy with anyone who mistreats my daughter, and I don't mind going back to prison."

Whenever I've used the 4137/SS-8 combination I've always given the SS-8 to the taxpayer to fill out after I entered the boilerplate info. I wanted to be sure they knew they took full responsiblity for what was being alleged and there was no question about who provided the info. I've suggested a few tweaks in the wording, but the claims made on the SS-8 were all theirs. And as you have all pointed out, it's important to warn the T/P of the potential consequences. I've always asked them to tell me they understand that it could result in their being fired if still working there, or never having a chance to work there again if not currently working there. But back to the form itself, since there are only a few carefully worded possible reasons for filing the 8919 and no provision for an "Other", could it be the opposite situation? Is it possible that IRS is providing a form which most people really can't use once they find that they don't fit one of the reason codes? Maybe it's a form whose real purpose is to discourage the practice of trying to shift the responsiblity for the matching FICA/Med back to the employer.

As well as, "I can write off my pet food, grooming, & vet bills for my pekingese because he serves as a guard dog for my inventory of (Amway, Mary Kay, Avon, Water Purifier, etc)"

Laura: You have my sympathy as well. I'm a sole practitioner also and have made my share of mistakes over the years, usually under deadline pressure. I agree with the other posts in suggesting that you not use the 1040A or EZ in the future. One question - did your error create refunds? If you entered the Medicare as W/H tax, then it is possible that he received refunds in excess of his withholding. If that is the case, then a careful analysis might help them to understand the situation better. Except for some people who qualify for the EIC, most people understand the concept of not getting something they didn't earn. You should still try to get the penalties abated and reimburse the interest, even pay the net tax due as Old Jack suggested if you are in a position to do so, but if my hunch is right then you may find the client even more understanding than you first imagine if you just lay out the facts for them.

Personally, the only thing which would bother me about an ATX employee posting on this forum would be to learn that the individual suffered some sort of job action as a result of their participation here, especially if I benefitted from it in some way. It's a legitimate concern, because I've seen people get reprimanded or lose their jobs over actions taken in emails or internate usage that their employers deemed inappropriae after-the-fact. However, I'm going to assume that any ATX employee posting here knows the score and would be wise enough not to compromise their job. Also, we could all claim to be ATX employees and thus foil any presumed attempts by the company to ferret out wrongdoing. I've said enough, now it's back to work (it's getting crowded here at the Caribou Coffee Hut).

I agree that they should be allowed to participate incognito, and that they can bring some valuable info to this community. We are already experienced at figuring out when info from a given participant is reliable or when it isn't, regardless of where they work.

Did I miss something? I didn't see anything in your posts that was threatening or uncomfortable. Unless a little reality is threatening or uncomfortable to someone... To quote Harry Truman - "I don't give em h$ll, I just tell them the truth and they think it's h$ll."

I like jainen's reply, especially the last sentence. A good pricing pattern to follow is the one an optometrist taught to his new assistant. After the exam, look the customer straight in the eyes and say, "Mr Jones, you need eyeglasses." He will always ask how much they cost. Keep your focus on his eyes and say "$100". If he doesn't blink, say "For the Lenses" If he still doesn't blink, say "Each" If he still doesn't blink, say "And of course you'll need a spare set"

Pacun: Thank you for the kind words and the encouragement. It isn't that I don't know how to efile, I just don't care to do it. Just to be clear, I'm not staying away because of the technology or the process. I have several business reasons for staying firmly in the non-e-filing camp until I'm forced to do it. If that happens before I retire, I'll switch over the afternoon of the day it becomes mandatory, not a day sooner. Or I may retire on that day - who knows? Stated another way, I'll begin efiling the day Jerry Mealer begins efiling. And although I respect many of jainen's posts, I completely disagree that refusing to efile is short-changing MY clients. That's probably true for some preparers, but I remain unconvinced. We all don't have the same client base or the same business model.

What is the number of returns that one must prepare to come under the mandatory e-file rules in CA? I only file one CA return (paper, of course), and I plan to stay with paper unless NC or the IRS forces me to change. If NC goes to mandatory efile and the cutoff number of returns is set high enough, my first step would be to increase my fees sufficiently to drive off enough clients to keep me under the threshhold , and maybe make more $ in the process.

Well, if you look at their "Latest News" and notice that the most recent item posted was a 5/4/07 notice about the cutback in their customer service hours, you get a further indication of how important communication is to them right now. Except, of course, the constant urging to sign up early - now that side of the communications equation seems to be working just fine.

Melvin: So what would be a reasonable amount of start-up capital if you decided to do this and required some investors?

Thanks for the replies. I had the 24-month rule figured out, including the importance of actually occupying the house when it is completed, but had not been able to nail down whether the T/P could make a year-by-year choice on which home constitutes the 2nd home when there was a precedent already in place. This was a big deal in this case. $1,200 interest on the time share vs $25,000 interest on the home under construction. The Sec 163 reference was right on target - I appreciate that. Reading down to (h)(4)(A), I find that the taxpayer can make the determination of which is the 2nd residence and each year stands on its own.

Interesting little quirk here - maybe someone has seen this before and can steer me right before I research it further. For several years, T/P has been deducting interest on primary residence and also interest paid on a deeded time share as a second residence. This year the T/P began building a new home, so now they have mortgage interest on the primary residence, time share, and the construction loan on the new home. I'm assuming he can just stop considering the time share as a second residence and deduct the interest on the home under construction as a second residence. Am I right?

Don: You'd better get it fixed or your turntable drive might become a hamster steak. The little fellows can only stand so much irradiation before they begin to cook.

I have several clients whose employer moves them from time-to-time and reimburses all expenses. Other than the specifically excludable moving expenses, all other reimbursements are taxable income. This employer is nice enough to gross up the reimbursement in order to make the employee whole, but they are not required to do so. In any event, the realtor fees are always included in the gross-up and added to the W-2 as wages, taxable like any other earned income.

Deb: Good negotiating. Hold out for the coffe pot, toaster, & microwave oven. I have a feeling we will eventually get to that point.

I'm guessing the explanation will accompany their next statement of the upcoming year's benefits, which I think is sent out in Oct or Nov. It will probably say they should expect a make-up check without saying the check may have already been sent. By then the client will have forgotten all this and will be looking for another check. Oh well, at least SSA sent the $$$. It's hard to complain about that.

Well, it turns out to be much simpler than I first thought. After spending most of her day on hold and being shuttled from one person to the other, she learned tha it was nothing more than a SocSec benefit increase. The taxpayer's monthly SocSec benefit was increased as a result of her reported W-2 earnings over the past several years since she retired. For some reason it took them a long time to process the info, and the $1,500 check was indeed a make-up check for the retroactive payment. I still don't know why it has the notation on it, but just to the left of the amount imprinted on the check, it clearly says: SOC SEC FOR INS

Bob: Thanks for that info. The client definitely doesn't fall into any of those categories. I've told her not to sit on this - she's supposed to be contacting SSA today.

Taxbilly: I tried searching it earlier but didn't come up with anything near what you got. Thanks for the link - that was very useful. It seems that this notation has somehting to do with SSI and/or Medicaid, neither of which would apply to this client. I advised them to not cash the check and to contact SSA about it right away. It could be a simple SSA error, or it could be the tip of an identity theft or Medicaid fraud iceberg.

I really like the uni-forms. I buy enough in one year to last 2 or 3 years, which you can do since nothing is preprinted on them so they aren't year-specific. You can also use them for 1099's, which is a time saver.

Client came into my office this AM with a $1500 check from US Treasury. Client is age 67 and has been receiving SocSec benefits since age 62, plus has been receiving salary from closely-held corp. Check is in her name, although she files a joint tax return with her husband. I told the client to look for some sort of correspondence in the next few days explaining the payment. In the meantime, I'm trying to figure out what it might be. I don't think it's a tax refund of any sort (no refunds are pending). The notation on the check to the left of the amount says "SOC SEC FOR INS". Has anybody ever seen this notation or have any idea what this may be?

Thanks for the heads up KC. I think I was about to be affected by this virus, so your warning was just in the nick of time. But just the same, I think I'll apply the antidotes as a preventative - one can't be too careful, you know.

Intriguing post? Me? I'm flattered. Maybe it can be explained by the fact that I follow the "blind hog" theory with my responses. -> " Even a blind hog will turn up an acorn from time-to-time if you let him root around long enough".