JohnH

Good to know. If I ever get sideways with Drake I'd consider ATX again, but honestly I think that's very unlikely.

I came to the exact opposite conclusion with respect to the no-brainer side of the equation. Especially since input speed is only a part of the efficiency equation. Incredibly fast speed of backups, speed of updates, rapid startup - all run circles around ATX or any competition in this price range. The ability to write macros in Drake is an incredible time saver, but a novice Drake evaluator wouldn't even know what I'm talking about. Nothing touches Drake in all these areas. But, as Judy pointed out, to each his own. That's why each company is still in business. And anyone contemplating a change would do themselves a disservice not to do a through evaluation of each software package as well as the company backing it up.

Good suggestion. I predict that anyone who actually does a valid side-by-side comparison will conclude that Drake wins hands-down, simply on the basis of speed at all levels of operation (preparation, production, organization, backup, and updating). Since time is money, saving time means greater productivity and more money on the bottom line. But the problem is that a true comparison requires abandoning the notion that direct forms entry is all that important, and many people just can't break that dependency. Additionally, Drake's customer service and overall business practices leave everybody else in this price range in the dust. I readily admit that I'm a biased Drake user, but I will add that my bias is a result of long-time experience with both ATX and Drake (as well as with Ultra Tax prior to switching over several years ago).

And. If you REALLY value your time, switch to Drake. You'll find you have much more of it available.

Your day at the beach brought to you by their day at the beach...

What about a hybrid transition plan? Keep Ultra-Tax on a pay pre return basis while making ATX your main program? It might cost a little more in the transition year, but at least you don't have all your eggs in one basket. You have Ultra Tax to fall back on if you run into trouble on a given return, and you have protection against any sort of meltdown (software or operational). I've always advocated multiple platforms for complex, busy offices for this very reason. But in a transition year I'd say it's a necessity. If I were considering ATX again (which I'm not now that I've discovered the superiority of Drake), I'd certainly want the absolute assurance I had a way out of the mess if I found it to be a mistake. At least my practice wouldn't be in danger. Another advantage might just be that Ultra Tax would find a way to make their pricing more acceptable to you once you tell them you're transitioning to another vendor.

I thought this might be of interest. (but can't vouch for its accuracy) http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/microsoft-forced-pay-woman-10000-8299880#rlabs=1 rt$category p$5

(Deleted - picture was unclear)

I thought of this thread today when I read something on www.bogleheads.org Financial Advisor: "Your portfolio need changing. It isn't set up to properly pay for college for the kids." Client: "I don't have any kids/" Financial Advisor: "I was talking about MY kids."

The extension would have completely eliminated the 5% monthly failure to file penalty. All that would have remained is the 1/2 of 1% monthly failure to pay penalty and a tiny amount of monthly interest. Filing an extension with proper estimates is an absolute guarantee that no FTF penalty will be assessed. It makes no difference how much is due on the estimate or whether the client pays all, some, or none of the balance due.

Very sad to hear. Will be praying for your nephew's family. Just had a client tell me of an almost identical story about his sister's son last week, also in his 20's. This has to be devastating to a parent.

So you're saying you don't want to hold her hand while she pays this off over the next 4-5 years, constantly reminding you of YOUR mistake without admitting her own mistakes of much greater magnitude? I think you're on the right track. Pay her the $194 and terminate. As long as she gives written acknowledgement of receipt of the $194, why should you care whether she sends it to the IRS or spends it getting her nails done?

It's all smoke & mirrors marketing. I prefer the way Drake handles this discount issue. Just like their software. Smooth, efficient, & predictable - with a minimum of fluff.

That's an inappropriate installation. Everyone knows that duct tape is the only acceptable means of attaching an auxiliary cooling unit to an electronic device.

Katherine: That's a nice organizer. Much more compact that most we see, but it covers all the major bases. mrewa: Whatever type of organizer you use, it's a great idea to email it to your clients (if you aren't already doing that).

Yep, that caught my attention too. A smart reviewer would note Rita's closing and say "It all looks good to me. Case closed."

A good friend who spent his banking career in commercial lending always says "You haven't sold anything until all the checks have cleared the bank". But he is speaking from the practical side rather than from the legal side. And he really has some interesting stories to tell .

I agree about TV and radio. I think the absolute best financial planning advice is found at this site: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/index.php The quality of the discussion on that site is amazing. Nothing even closely compares to it, including one-on-one sit-down sessions with the majority of financial planners. But it does require spending some time to learn the basics of investing, which really are not very complicated once one cuts through all the noise & nonsense that passes for advice.

Sometimes reconversions are wise, but it's almost always when the investment has changed drastically in value in the months following the Roth conversion. The other situation might involve intentionally over-converting and then topping off by reconverting enough to stay just inside in the 15% bracket. This is commonly done when income is subject to fluctuations. Doesn't sound like your client is being that precise with alll this back & forth activity. She would probably benefit greatly by adopting a reasonable asset allocation, consolidating the accounts into a single holiding for Roth and a single holding for qualified money, and then setting up a simple 2-fund or 3-fund portfolio that's mirrored in each holding. Chances are she's spinning her wheels while deluding herself into thinking she's engaging in some high finance dealings. A "set-it-and-forget-it" long term strategy works, but she doesn't sound like the type who has that sort of financial discipline. I think a good rule of thumb is to aim for 25-40% in Roth and the remaining 75-60% in qualified money - for that subset of people who can really benefit from the balancing act in retirement. But there are exceptions, especially if the Roth conversion can be done at a true 15% net, which almost always means doing them before beginning to draw Social Security benefits.

I agree. I'm usually not in favor of increased regulation, but the financial advisor industry and their bank/financial services proxies should be held to a higher standard than they are. Any time a commission is involved, there's an incentive to give bad advice. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' - Upton Sinclair

Great point. When people pose a tax question to me, I usually tell them that if a tax preparer answers with anything but "Well, it depends...", then the tax preparer probably misunderstood their question.

Roth conversions are highly beneficial to taxpayers who expect to be in the 15% or higher Fed bracket after retirement AND who are in the 15% bracket at the current time. It's also very important that they be done before beginning to draw Social Security in most cases. There are interesting tax management strategies for someone who has sufficient income in retirement to enable them to balance regular IRA/401(k) withdrawals with Roth withdrawals to meet their living expenses with the smallest tax haircut. Roth conversions at the right time and in the right amounts also help these taxpayers to avoid unnecessary taxes due to MRD's if they are not needed for living expenses. But having said all that, I can only think of a few very special situations in which someone should convert ALL their qualified money to Roth. Any financial advisor or banker who gives that sort of advice is way out of line.

I was fascinated by the reasoning and the apparent IRS position on this. I've never run across a 1099-C for cancellation of medical expenses, but if I had I would not have not come to this conclusion. I would have assumed that the excludable portion of the forgiven debt under Section 108 would only have been the tax-deductible amount after the 10%/7.5% haircut, and then probably only if the client itemized. I would have been totally off base on several levels.

Interesting article for spare-time reading: http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/06/06/john-oliver-buys-and-forgives-15-million-in-medical-debt-but-is-the-forgiveness-taxable/?ss=taxes#7f89131929a6