Amended Returns

[Tigger]

Please bare with me as this is the first time I have run across this problem in the last 6 years.

Completed tax return for couple with 2 dependents, e-filed, came back rejected. One of the ss numbers had already been used. Come to find out oldest Son (who completed his own return this year) did not check box that he is claimed on parents return. Needless to say parents are not happy about return being $1300 less than expected.

Looked at 1040X and did not see any way to amend Son's return. Am I right to assume that the parents are out of luck, of is there a way to amend this? Thanks,

[Black Bart]

Hmm?

Look on the back of the 1040X, Tig. Part 1 lists the exemptions orginally taken (1) in column A, the net change (-1) in column B, and the correct number (0) in column C. Just fill in the rest, explain, and you're ready to roll.

Ahem--please excuse me for mentioning it (most people would rather hear "your wife's ugly" than "you misspelled a word"), but I'm afraid you may get in serious trouble among the ladies with your use of the phrase "bare with me," which generally means: "let's get naked." It should be "bear with me." Hope you don't mind--I just feel it's my social responsibility to prevent a black eye and will not be mentioned again.

Best regards, BB

[jainen]

Can't see how you missed it

Can't see how you missed it. More than half of page two of 104X is devoted to changing your exemptions. The bold-face title of Part I is "Exemptions," and the first word of the first line thereof is "Yourself."

[ecb34691]

Also just send your rejected e-file return as a paper return with no changes. The IRS will process it as is, just longer. And amend the son's return. Another option is to e-file without the son as a dependent and then amend both returns later.

[veritas]

I had same problem. I amended kid's return then filed parents return by paper. They still denied the dependent on parents return. Big mess.

[BOB W]

Irs.....

......... does not process amended kiddie returns quickly. I seen it take up 1 year for the left hand to see what the right had is doing. I have even sent in both returns, kids 1040x and parents paper return with a letter and it still takes up to a year for them to get it corrected..................

[Black Bart]

Y'all are right.

Last year I talked to an IRS rep that worked in that section. He says they don't have any mandated time frame or agenda on 1040X, but that it's slow because they usually do them last. I haven't seen it take a year, but I'm not surpised that you have.

This thing is a pain in the neck and it happens quite a bit. I remember when both the parents and kids could claim the kids and it was soooo much easier.

I've had three this year--one a big nuisance--same as yours--kid filed first--parents' e-file thrown out. Amended kid and told them to wait as long as possible to give it time to get in the works, but they were due a big refund--kept calling every week for the okay to send off their paper. After five or six times I got tired of it and told them "do what you think is best." Don't know the upshot of it, but if they call back and complain about rejection, I'm giving them an earful.

[jainen]

its sole discretion

>>they don't have any mandated time frame or agenda on 1040X<<

There is no statutory authority for amending returns. The IRS is perfectly free to reject or ignore them at its sole discretion.

[Black Bart]

Okay, I'll consider myself

>>they don't have any mandated time frame or agenda on 1040X<<

There is no statutory authority for amending returns. The IRS is perfectly free to reject or ignore them at its sole discretion.

trounced and trumped (payback's a b****, isn't it?). But still, in the real world, I've never had or heard of one being ignored

[jainen]

being ignored

>>I've never had or heard of one being ignored<<

Bob just told you about one.

[Black Bart]

Boy, you do

hate to lose an argument, don't you? Actually, he just said it took a year for them to get around to it.

[jainen]

You win.

You win. They only ignored it for a year. Then they didn't ignore it after they ignored it.

[geekgirldany]

I'm in the process of getting a 1040x looked at again. Pretty complicated return involving Sick Pay. Sent it back in May 2004. Called Tax Prac Hotline they said in July give it three months. Called in September. They said it was being looked at and gave me the date when it was transferred around for someone to finally look at in July. Give it six months. So I called again around April 05, July 05, Sept 05. I kept on getting the same thing. One told me it was in activity control. It was on a auditors desk they just had not looked at it.

Well fast forward to March 06. Call Tax Prep Hotline... finally someone told me it had been to long for it just to sit there. That the amended return was still open just nothing done with it. Gave me the number for Atlanta Auditors office. Couldn't get through without an extension so I went to the Taxpayer Advocates office.

In two weeks got a notice to resend the 1040x to them. In 3 days got a notice stating to give them until end of April. That the 1040x had been forwarded to the correct office. We will see what happens. My customers are due back a really big refund.

I think the person that got it didn't know what to do with it. It was in regards to Sick Pay credit and plus the taxpayer had been making payments for that year because the IRS said they owed on Income that had not been reported. Well with this credit it is resulting in a refund and I suspect the IRS owing them back the tax that has been paid.

They can hold off as long as they want. Taxpayer Advocate office has been really good with me on several cases.

[Chief]

1040x

I efiled a return for a college student. His mother filed with HRBlock and told the preparer not to include her son as a dependent. The preparer did and thus both returns were held up. HR Block paid her for the refund due the son. The son then received his refund within three weeks. That's all I know so I ain't talking no more.

[Black Bart]

Define &quot;is.&quot;

You win. They only ignored it for a year. Then they didn't ignore it after they ignored it.

Sorry. Had to drop out for the night. I think you're a couple of hours behind us.

It's getting a bit Clintonesque. Does "ignore" mean "slow" processed like Bob's case or is it like GGD's (proves your position--they can ignore it), which apparently was "never" going to be processed; probably not because of statutes (or the lack of them), but because they haven't done that type before and don't want to start now?

Look, I know you're ticked off about Harve's case, but here's the thing. You can parse out the fine details all you want, but that 1099's not going to an appellate court--it's going to a clerk who's interested in only one thing--is that 1099 on the return? I think he stands a greater chance of audit excluding it under an arcane rule than he does listing it as a "business" on schedule C (assuming the loss isn't outrageous). You don't think it's a business--I do. So does Harve, although he was predisposed to agree with me because I agreed with him. If you want to argue theory, then fine; I concede you're the more learned here and Sandra Day O'Connor would probably concur with your conclusion, but Harve isn't interested in the the purity of your argument. He's interested in getting a tax break for clients. And so am I.