Form 2106, I have never seen this

[AZ-Tax]

New client. Earned W-2 wage in 2009 and used personal car 100% (as stated on 2106 part 2 vehicle exps) in connection with W-2 wage. The question: was your vehicle available for personal use during the off duty hours.......neither yes or no box were checked. The remaining 3 questions were checked. Also, 2106 does not have "date vehicle placed in service". Unless I override, my ProSeries mandates that question 11 & 18 be answered of course I am e-filing and I think the tax preparer who prepared the 09 return mailed it. Even though the household has a 2nd vehicle, still seems like a red flag.

[Larmil]

100% highly unlikely

New client. Earned W-2 wage in 2009 and used personal car 100% (as stated on 2106 part 2 vehicle exps) in connection with W-2 wage. The question: was your vehicle available for personal use during the off duty hours.......neither yes or no box were checked. The remaining 3 questions were checked. Also, 2106 does not have "date vehicle placed in service". Unless I override, my ProSeries mandates that question 11 & 18 be answered of course I am e-filing and I think the tax preparer who prepared the 09 return mailed it. Even though the household has a 2nd vehicle, still seems like a red flag.

unless t/p had OIH or parked his vehicle at the employer's place of business. Otherwise there would be commuting mileage.

[FEDUKE404]

Sounds shaky

A 100% business use car for an employee and no other vehicle available?

As Larmil noted, it might be a challenge unless the "business" car was garaged at his employer's office.

BTW: You did not mention what this person's job is......

FE

[AZ-Tax]

My orginal post does say TP has 2nd vehicle

TP is in sales business and goes around and sells. Still, why didnt the CPA check either the yes or no box about "was your vehicle available for personal use during off-duty hours?" With a 100% usage the "no" box should have been checked and no date of for when placed in service.

[Larmil]

TP is in sales business and goes around and sells. Still, why didnt the CPA check either the yes or no box about "was your vehicle available for personal use during off-duty hours?" With a 100% usage the "no" box should have been checked and no date of for when placed in service.

Usage is not 100%

[thomtax]

TP is in sales business and goes around and sells. Still, why didnt the CPA check either the yes or no box about "was your vehicle available for personal use during off-duty hours?" With a 100% usage the "no" box should have been checked and no date of for when placed in service.

It should have been, but by not checking either one he is probably trying to leave himself an out to say "I did not say he had another car." I have seen this many times in my area by a certain preparer, along with a lot of other things from her that should not have been done.

LT

[FEDUKE404]

They ARE out there!

....I have seen this many times in my area by a certain preparer, along with a lot of other things from her that should not have been done.

LT

We had an "accountant" like that around here - his clients were very pleased with his work, which always seemed to create greater refunds than anyone else could.

Unfortunately, said accountant is now enjoying an active sentence in the state prisons, and each and every one of his clients was eventually audited by the state department of revenue. Most of them ended up having to write some very large checks to settle things.

I've even seen some of his "products."

FE