kcjenkins Posted January 4, 2014 Report Posted January 4, 2014 Which is how they should do it. Giving a copy to the client is never a problem. But those days when a client called up and asked, and we then faxed a copy to the bank, are behind us. Cir 230 now makes that an impossible option. 1 Quote
Lion EA Posted January 4, 2014 Report Posted January 4, 2014 Taxed: check to see if your software printing has a checkbox or other setting to mask the SSN when sending to a printer or .pdf file. It's really fast. I print all client copies with SSNs masked to have fewer copies out there with SSNs. Quote
Crank Posted January 4, 2014 Report Posted January 4, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_privacy Wikipedia talks about what you can expect for e-mail privacy. When I send the pdf of a return I encrypt it and send the password separately either as a txt message or voice mail. Ditto Quote
Guest Taxed Posted January 4, 2014 Report Posted January 4, 2014 Taxed: check to see if your software printing has a checkbox or other setting to mask the SSN when sending to a printer or .pdf file. It's really fast. I print all client copies with SSNs masked to have fewer copies out there with SSNs. What I do is print the pdf of the return as soon as I get the e-file ack. and archive it to the Document Manager. That way I am not firing up the tax prep software each time they want a copy of the return. I have to double check but I don't think Drake has that option to mask the ss#. Jklcpa, JohnH do you guys know if Drake allows ss# masking? Edit: Checked the software. Can't mask SS# on the return pdf. Quote
michaelmars Posted January 6, 2014 Report Posted January 6, 2014 Taxed, on 03 Jan 2014 - 12:21 PM, said: http://en.wikipedia....i/Email_privacy Wikipedia talks about what you can expect for e-mail privacy. When I send the pdf of a return I encrypt it and send the password separately either as a txt message or voice mail. I would not have expected anything else from you. You bought into the paranoid baseless irrational fear. Still waiting for the example of an e-mail being "intercepted." I agree with the above procedure, Even if it is useless and irrational, if something leaks out I would rather show that I took recommended steps to control the data than didn't. Sort of like a doctor that runs extra tests "just in case" It plays better with the attorneys and satisfies the insurance company. We do a lot of things that don't make sense "just because". We aren't allowed to send out an email with SS#'s unless encrypted in NY and would you rather spend 30 seconds encrypting an email or fighting with banks, the state etc. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.