W2 is wrong

[Rapid Robert]

"No reduction is afforded based on payments,"

What surprises me (not really) is that no effort seems to have been put into identifying the exact detailed nature of the payments, and whether they would be deductible or additions to basis, as alluded to in post #6.

[ATSMAN]

Not sure how the Original Poster operates his/her business BUT I am sure if this came to litigation and the Liability Insurance carrier got wind that their insured changed amounts on a W2 that was not within the scope of work they would deny any claims.

I agree completely with other posters who suggested proper due diligence before giving any opinion to a taxpayer. Stuff in the gray areas always comes to bite you when you least expect it. Better to check twice and write once!

[Burke]

Late to the discussion, but I agree with the validity of the statements by other posters on this board. Given the additional information by OP, it appears this issue has been addressed with the Company before and not resolved. If the TP wants to take the Company to court over it, that is his right to do so. kathyc2 is right on when she says to obtain the contract the TP signed. But that is not the responsibility of the preparer. If the lease agreement substantiates the TP's position that they are reporting an incorrect amount, then at least the preparer has something to back up filing 4852 in lieu of the W-2. It appears, however, that the preparer is using other subjective substantiation for not using W-2.

[Beersheba]

Burke, thanks for your input. I thought the thread was mercifully closed but your comments are very appropriate, so I will post again.

There is not a single post supporting what I have done, and maybe there shouldn't be. The outcry has ranged from virtual ignorance to lack of due diligence to total incompetence.

I have concentrated on the unfairness of the Nissan W-2, rather than portray how I responded to the information I had at my disposal. I believe while at a tax appointment, all of us are confronted with a "preponderance of the evidence," to borrow a phrase from criminal law. We have to make decisions based on what we see and make reasonable judgments accordingly, without chasing down any remotely conceivable improprieties of the information presented to us.

In the Nissan situation, the taxpayers' daughter, who has a PhD in Chemical Engineering (if that's worth anything), presented fair market rental value that she received from Nissan itself. Not only was this authentic information from Nissan, but also having some idea myself of what autos rent for, the FMV appeared to me to be reasonable. The amount monthly paid came from the taxpayer and was a known parameter, assuming again that the family was telling the truth. The difference was simply a matter of arithmetic subtraction.

The W-2s were reduced accordingly to the benefit derived, consistent with what Nissan claims to be their policy (notwithstanding how their W-2s are calculated).

I have to make the case for dealing with reasonable interpretation of information available at a tax appointment. This axiom does not always work in favor of the taxpayer, as obvious understatements of revenue or overstatement of expenses are met with the same criteria, and these are not compromised with wild stretches of imagination that I hear from the client.

Burke, thank you for entering the fray.

[FEDUKE404]

I don't recall ever being present at "a tax appointment" where a large portion of the time dealt with determining if numbers reported on a W2 were correct and/or then changing how I enter said data appearing on the W2.
That's why the Good Lord came up with CORRECTED tax documents as an option to repair things.
Regardless of any quoted due diligence issues that might be in play, I have serious doubts if such an egregious error would have been committed repeatedly, without any source corrections, by the Nissan corporate folks. A reasonable person could easily reach the conclusion. . .that the W2 is correct as issued.