Why EVER deal with any IRS person via telephone?

[FEDUKE404]

I just confirmed why I should never bother to handle anything with the IRS via telephone. . .

Client received CP12 notice for tax year 2013. Issue was "We changed the amount of taxable Social Security benefits on line 14b of your Form 1040A because there was an error in the computation of the taxable amount."

Well, there was NO error and the issue is that the client properly used the Lump Sum Election (received 2012 retroactive benefits in 2013) to reduce the amount of overall taxable benefits for 2013.

Dare I mention: As required, the letters "LSE" were plainly shown per the IRS instructions, on Line 14a of the filed tax return ??

Dare I also mention: The return was efiled, but was rejected due to someone already using the spouse's SSN. A paper return became necessary (and was filed in early February). My guess is the data clerk who entered the numbers from the paper-filed return just overlooked those three important letters?

The IRS guy today was in DC, and can only look at a computer screen of the data, which of course shows no LSE notation. GIGO. Apparently the actual paper return is somewhere in a warehouse in Kansas City? Never to be seen again???

This SHOULD be an easy fix for any IRS person, merely be looking at the paper-filed return which they already have. I can "turn off" the LSE election, and get exactly the proposed changes as shown on the CP12 letter. Nothing is being proposed as a "change" on the tax return.....mainly....just look at the darn tax return already in your possession!!!

So, after a one-hour call (client is now disabled, so I thought I would go the extra mile for him), the only thing that resulted was the client WILL have to write a letter to respond to the suggested (and incorrect!) IRS changes. It should be noted that the original return properly showed information for "Third Party Designee."

Is this the best the IRS can offer for a solution such as this?

I hate Mondays . . . .

FE

[veritas]

ironic

The fraudsters seem to get the best service.

[JohnH]

My first contact with IRS still tends to be via telephone with the client conferenced in. More often than not, that resolves the issue without having to mess with POA's etc. It often gives me clear direction on what to do if paperwork does need to be submitted. But yes, there are exceptions...

[FEDUKE404]

No mas

My first contact with IRS still tends to be via telephone with the client conferenced in. More often than not, that resolves the issue without having to mess with POA's etc. It often gives me clear direction on what to do if paperwork does need to be submitted. But yes, there are exceptions...

Client was not involved - they live more than an hour away.

Call of today had nothing to do with "changes" other than to try to get through someone's thick skull that the return they already had (well, at least the data entry person in Kansas City, a couple of months ago, had) was correct as presented. Remove rejected efile, replace with paper return, insert IRS data entry clerk, induce typo. Guy in Washington could not/will never see the original "return."

Regardless, the otherwise helpful guy today said the ONLY option was to prepare a written response with documentation. Nothing could be accomplished over the telephone, regardless of who was/was not on the line. Aside from the fact the response will, in so many words, say something like "return is fine....nothing is to be changed....just LOOK at it!"

As for POA, that is a minefield I don't need. My last experience was for a client who, earlier this, decided my having a POA might be helpful. I visited local FedEx place, paid way too much $$$ and faxed properly signed Form 2848, and waited. Roughly eight weeks later I received, via snail mail, a copy of the faxed Form 2848 that had an unchecked box or something. I dropped it in snail mail and have heard nothing further. I told guy today that I would avoid any Forms 2848 as it likely would be Christmas before any newly-executed POAs first became useful.

A side issue with making telephone calls is, quite frankly, that it is a waste of my time to be listening to elevator music for extended periods, dealing with phone trees, and then playing forty-five questions before any meaningful conversation can even occur.

Yeah, I also agree with the observation made by veritas !

FE

[buzzardbreath]

What is the Alternative?

None of us like dealing with the IRS over the phone. All of us have talked with our share of incompetents
and run up against their IT systems that don't work.

But for all except a few cases, if you live far from an IRS field office, what do you offer as an alternative?

[JohnH]

I find the telephone method to be fairly efficient in most situations with a little advance planning. I contact the client to ask if they will be available for the next hour or so. I tell them that the next call will be a conference call and the IRS person will be on the line with us. The initial focus of the call will be to establish that I have their permission the speak with IRS about the matter. And I explain that IRS must do things this way in order to protect the client's privacy. I also arrange a signal with the client to let them know if I want to terminate the call once it is in progress.

The I call IRS, go straight to the "talk with someone" option, then place it on speaker while I work on something important on my desk. When they answer, I explain who I am and that I'd like to place them on hold for a few seconds while I conference the client in. Only on one or two occasions have I run into a jerk who refused. ( In that situation, I probably wouldn't have wanted to discuss the issue with that particular agent anyhow.). Once the client is conferenced in and the IRS person asks a few verification questions, we are on to a resolution. Sometimes that means getting it resolved on the spot. In other situations, it means knowing exactly what the next step is and where to send any needed documentation.

A side benefit is that most clients come away from the conversation with an appreciation for the fact that the person at the IRS of often a on ordinary decent person, much like to rest of us, who is just trying to get their job done.

[AZ-Tax]

Lucky you for being on hold for only 1 hour

I contact the client to ask if they will be available for the next hour or so.

One time I was on hold for 4.5 hours. Its only between Apr 16th and Oct 1st then again Oct 16th thru Jan 15th, I get lucky and be on hold for less then 1 hour. A couple times I did a conference call with my client but I faxed in the 2848 first, had the IRS verify my data then I would call and conference in the client but a couple times the clients made it worse. Since then I no longer conference in my clients.

[FEDUKE404]

Why waste my time ?

None of us like dealing with the IRS over the phone. All of us have talked with our share of incompetents and run up against their IT systems that don't work.

But for all except a few cases, if you live far from an IRS field office, what do you offer as an alternative?

Well, not looking for instant gratification and perhaps wanting a written record of things, a letter sent via the Postal Service might work quite well.

The IRS person yesterday was likely far from incompetent, but in so many words he explained that nothing could be accomplished via telephone. That would be whether client called (they had done so, earlier, on their own, and came out thoroughly confused - "I am just not smart enough to get through to them"), whether I called (knowing something about the tax issue involved), or if we all three had a kumbayah moment or two as JohnH deems appropriate.

The front-line IRS people just are not equipped to handle anything except a few patent questions/answers. And it takes considerable time to even first reach a human being. I counted three different times my call to the EXACT dial-in number shown on the CP12 notice got transferred. There were absolutely NO tax issues to be discussed yesterday - merely the problem that what was clearly shown on a paper (after rejected efile) return did NOT match with what an IRS clerk had entered into their computer system. This problem could have been resolved within a minute if *ANYONE* within the IRS could have seen the physical tax return itself. An "Oops!" would have been all that was necessary to resolve this matter.

I cannot imagine what would be involved had this event involved a complex tax matter and/or a disputed amount.

It is my humble opinion that resolving anything with tax folks over the telephone is becoming a victim of days gone by. The approach to such matters that was used twenty years ago just does not work any more. Perhaps when one gets into an actual one-on-one audit process a phone call may be helpful, but up until that point I choose not to waste my time listening to elevator music or dealing with someone who knows basically zilch about taxes (and nothing about the tax return) or having to endure "we can't do anything about that over the phone."

FWIW: I live less than two miles from an IRS field office. That fact does not change my perspective one iota.

So - I composed a nice letter for the clients to sign and mail, also provided a copy of the original paper return with certain items highlighted/circled, and even included a couple of relevant worksheets (from the relevant IRS publication) for good measure. NOTHING on the return has been changed, NOTHING has been disputed, and if an efiled return had not "bounced" we probably would not be having this discussion in the first place.

FE

[JohnH]

I like that characterization - I'll start calling these "kumbayah calls".

I've never been on hold for more than an hour or so, but that's usually due to the fact that I do hang up and call later if the wait extends beyond the time I have available.

I did maybe a half dozen of them last year, and only one this year so far. Each went pretty much as I expected, so I totally reject the premise that it's something which worked 20 years ago and no longer applies.

Incidentally, one thing which we haven't mentioned is that the person on the phone can ALWAYS take care of one detail - they can date the file forward for up to 90 days to allow extra time if needed.

And of course there are some situations (and some clients), where the client should NOT be in on the call. I'm not suggesting that this is a one size fits all approach. Tax practice, just like any other discipline, requires the level of discernment necessary to take appropriate actions under the given circumstances.

[Gary2]

The IRS guy today was in DC, and can only look at a computer screen of the data, which of course shows no LSE notation. GIGO. Apparently the actual paper return is somewhere in a warehouse in Kansas City? Never to be seen again???

I was under the rumored, and possibly erroneous impression that the paper was first scanned, and then (at a later date), someone working off of the scanned image manually transcribed the data into the system. Can anyone confirm or refute that this is the process?

Even if true, that doesn't mean other agents have access to the original image. And let's face it, they don't give the most experienced people the job of doing data entry off of paper returns (or amendments, for that matter). See the other recent thread on the crisis at the IRS.

[Roberts]

I've routinely been surprised by the level of services I've received calling the IRS.
What I do hate is that the check mark box for 3rd party authorization doesn't last more than a year. Rarely does the IRS seem to make correction in the allotted time so I'm required to get a POA.

Phoning the IRS isn't going to SOLVE problems, it starts the process of fixing the problem.

[JohnH]

I agree wholeheartedly.

[DonB]

Get Verification

Incidentally, one thing which we haven't mentioned is that the person on the phone can ALWAYS take care of one detail - they can date the file forward for up to 90 days to allow extra time if needed.

I have used and will continue to used the telephone "hot line" when appropriate. However, from a recent experience I offer some warnings. If you think the issue is resolved, ask for a conformation letter, or call back in a few days to verify. Do not let the issue go past the CP2000 deadline without this conformation. I had a slam dunk issue (TP granted dependency of child via 8332 but denied the child tax credit) that the "hot line" agent said was an IRS mistake and that he would make such a notation and forward it to the examining agent. He said this would suffice as a reply to the last letter. A few weeks later a 90 day determination of deficiency arrived. A letter and numerous phone calls got no results. All agents agreed the ruling was a mistake but they could not themselves make a change claiming only the original examiner could make such a correction. Several IRS messages to the original examiner to respond went unheeded. We ended up petitioning the Tax Court and the issue was resolved in favor of the TP by the preliminary review staff. I had one faxed reply that did not get posted which I discovered by calling them 10 days later.

[geekgirldany]

I must say in the past when I have called, the problem was resolved over the phone or through various correspondence. I always call them first thing in the morning so I do not have to wait.

It appears though that things are getting worse. They are short staffed and situations will just not be resolved as before.
A couple of years ago a client was audited on a sales tax deduction. IRS was sent the receipts three times. It dragged on for year with my continually requests for extensions for them to process the paperwork. I finally took it to the Taxpayer Advocate. After working with them an month the entire case was closed in my clients favor.

[FEDUKE404]

IRS scans incoming forms

I was under the rumored, and possibly erroneous impression that the paper was first scanned, and then (at a later date), someone working off of the scanned image manually transcribed the data into the system. Can anyone confirm or refute that this is the process?

Even if true, that doesn't mean other agents have access to the original image. And let's face it, they don't give the most experienced people the job of doing data entry off of paper returns (or amendments, for that matter). See the other recent thread on the crisis at the IRS.

Interesting question - worth an answer. Does anyone know?

My other most recent experience with the IRS monster was a properly-filed 1040X. The return generated a letter, several months later, to the taxpayer saying that no one had signed page two of the Form 1040X. Well, I had signed it and both the client and spouse had signed it upon original submission to the appropriate IRS center (Kansas City?).

What had *REALLY* happened was that the entire page 2 of the Form 1040X (signatures + write a novella) never made it into the system. The stuff the folks in NY (Holtsville?) were looking at not only lacked a signature or two, but also lacked page 2. The letter from Holtsville did include a copy of scanned page 1 of the Form 1040X. So, we killed a few trees, sent a new copy of everything to Holtsville, and are now awaiting our fate.

While I will accept that an IRS data entry clerk might not see too many "LSE" entries for Social Security benefits received, one would otherwise think they would, perhaps, be looking for a page 2 for any Forms 1040X submitted to them.

Maybe I just have bad luck with the IRS?

FE