Line 20a New

[Joe Btfsplk]

The IRS has now decided that line 20a needs to be entered, even if NONE of the Social Security is taxable.
Years ago, I thought it was an error in the program when line 20a was blank and I used to override the program to enter it.

[BOB W]

20a

Most programs have a user preference check off to either include or exclude SS in 20a. Check with your program.

[Brad Imsdahl]

All programs will now be required to include total benefits on line 20a since IRS 2006 instructions have changed.

Having to report that all of a sudden kind of surprises me. Why the change? Does IRS not have enough to do?

What also surprises me is our arch rival, “competitor Q,” didn’t include that in their line 20 instructions, nor did they mention the new alternative formula for Schedule C filers to claim the telephone excise tax on line 71, nor did they mention any of the 2007 pension plan limitations, or the 2007 standard mileage rate, or any other 2007 inflation adjustments that have been out since early November, nor can I find any of the other 2006 Form 1040 instruction changes in their book. I get the feeling they printed their book prior to the IRS releasing the 2006 Form 1040 instructions.

Here I was all worried they would get the new tax act in their book like us. We stopped the printing press on December 9th to get the new tax act inserted into the front of our books. I don't think they even bothered waiting for the 1040 instructions to come out.

I don’t mean to sound nit picky…tax laws change all the time. You can’t hold off printing the book forever. But at least when I was running the show over there, we always waited for the IRS to release the latest 1040 instructions before sending the book off to print.

[sea-tax]

I have always included the SS amounts on line 20A . Why becuase if I did not then my clients would always ask the question"did you get my social security?" One year I forced the program not to pick them up , what a mess I had to change part way through.

On another note and I hope Brad you don't take offense to this. I so far after having your book for a couple of days have been impressed. I will be frustrated at times this season because it will take some time to get used to a new layout. But after that I think I will definately stick with your book.

Your comments though on the last post do you no good in my opinion. I think you would have been better off not mentioning them and letting people find out on there own. I have seen the way you have handled yourself on other occasions and have likewise been impressed but the last post made you loose some points with me.

Like I said I hope you don't take my comments the wrong way. Just my 2 cents.

[OldJack]

What also surprises me is our arch rival, “competitor Q,” didn’t include that in their ....................... I get the feeling they printed their book prior to the IRS releasing the 2006 Form 1040 instructions.

You don't have to subscribe to QF if you don't like their book. Hell-o, they might even give you a refund if you return it. TheTaxBook has a pretty good book that you might like, but don't drop the deluxe edition on your foot unless you got good hospital insurance.

[Black Bart]

Tax Extenders II

Don't get excited -- this is my sole post on the subject.

Personally, I didn't see anything at all wrong with Brad's post.

In fact, I found it interesting and a privilege to be allowed an insight into the thinking of one instumental in creating a major published reference work. Having so frequently dealt with corporate lackeys who know little and care less (as I'm sure you have) about what they're selling, it's quite refreshing that a top publishing executive is sufficiently and personally concerned to advise us of his views and rationale vis-a-vis proper, beneficial, and timely publishing procedure.

Such attitudes nowadays are as rare as unicorns. Say you disagreed with CCH's timetable and called; saying "I want to speak to an editor." Most likely response: "Sorry; complaints and comments must be emailed to corporate.com -- do you want to place an order now?"

Now, I respect sea-tax and he's entitled to his opinion, but I disagree. Yes, Brad posted some facts here that reflect negatively (but not maliciously) on QF; but this is his board -- he didn't go over to QF and post it. Yesterday on the "Tax Extenders" thread, "freedom of posting" advocates were upset because I complained about their pointing out TTB's shortcomings on TTB's board. They said "It's the truth and it's information useful to practitioners." So what's inappropriate about pointing out QF's faults here too? It's "information useful to practitioners," isn't it?

And...now..Jack / It's not mandatory that you take a shot at every opening. Obviously TTB gets copies of QF stuff to see what the competition is doing (just as you and I would like to see CPA John Downthestreet's price list). Also, I've bought Kleinrock, QF, CCH, Lasser, and other tax tomes. None of them are printed on the head of a pin.

[Brad Imsdahl]

Your comments though on the last post do you no good in my opinion. I think you would have been better off not mentioning them and letting people find out on there own. I have seen the way you have handled yourself on other occasions and have likewise been impressed but the last post made you loose some points with me.

Personally, I didn't see anything at all wrong with Brad's post.

I appreciate both of your opinions, but I have to admit that to a certain extent, I agree with sea-tax.

However, Black Bart brings up another interesting point. Had Bees Knees said what I just said, minus the reference to once having run the show over there, would the reaction be the same?

How about if OldJack said it? Or jainen, or anyone else on this board?

People come on this message board all the time and criticize flaws in other products. Jiggers just started a new thread revealing flaws in Drake software. That is nothing new for this board. It is a legitimate topic.

The point being, why is it all of a sudden inappropriate for me to freely express my opinion, or to make editorial comments? The answer is obvious, as I am held to a different standard based entirely on my identity. Therefore, from a company PR standpoint, I need to walk on egg shells.

I apologize if I have offended anyone by not staying within the confines of my expected behavior given my obvious identity. If that is the some people feel on this board, I will respect that. However, for reasons I do not care to discuss, Bees Knees has been permanently banned from posting on this message board. Now I would like to know if I am allowed to continue to post messages in the way I always have on this board. Or do I have a new set of rules I must follow given I can no longer answer tax questions under an alias?

[Jiggers]

Bad's opinions

Keep them up. How else are we to learn about our software, tax reference books, computers, printers, etc..................................... and on and on and on about various and sundrie subjects.

I don't have the time to search and review every time I want to make a decision about something, especially purchasing something. I appreciate the comments and reviews about all of these subjects and it makes my decision making easier.

If I have a problem with Drake, I want to let others know. Maybe they have a solution, or maybe Drake will get wind of the negative comments.

If I have a problem with Dell, and their sorry support that is located overseas! Maybe others will help with a solution and maybe Dell will get wind of the negative comments.

I posted a complaint about Dell and their sorry support was given a telephone number with someone in Texas that helped with the problem. They could understand the problem when their support overseas couldn't. Got the problem solved, including new hardware!

Keep up the comment and reviews Brad, and anyone else!

[Gene V]

Bees Knees has been permanently banned from posting on this message board

Brad,
Bees Knees was one of the most valued and knowledgeable poster on this board, since you banned him from this board, you must take his place and keep posting in the way you
have always done.

Just my humble opinion.

[OldJack]

I apologize if I have offended anyone by not staying within the confines of my expected behavior given my obvious identity. If that is the some people feel on this board, I will respect that. However, for reasons I do not care to discuss, Bees Knees has been permanently banned from posting on this message board. Now I would like to know if I am allowed to continue to post messages in the way I always have on this board. Or do I have a new set of rules I must follow given I can no longer answer tax questions under an alias?

Brad... I don't know why you banned Bees Knees, but your postings are absolutely necessary for the success of this board. OK, I'll say it we need you and you have nothing to apologize for. Regardless of what identity you use we need your constant input and knowledge on this forum. You also have more time and resources to research than we do and that provides great input and service to all of us.

Sure, as Black Bart has pointed out, I like to take a shot at you when I can because you are the "expert" and you know it is not personal or a malicious attack. To hell with what others think, lets keep the fun on this board along with the great tax subjects. Why you can't use and alias is just plain stupid. Frankly, you give better posts as an alias but I look forward to your post whatever you call yourself.

[Black Bart]

All's Well That Ends Well.

...lets keep the fun on this board along with the great tax subjects...I look forward to your post whatever you call yourself.

Jack pretty well wrapped it up. I guess you can make up the rules as you go, or take a poll, or whatever you feel like you need to do and we'll go along for the ride.

And it's nice, isn't it, to end on a harmonious note?

Merry Christmas to all.

[Black Bart]

And Jack;

Brad...Bees Knees...your postings are absolutely necessary for the success of this board. OK, I'll say it we need you and you have nothing to apologize for. Regardless of what identity you use we need your constant input and knowledge on this forum. You also have more time and resources to research than we do and that provides great input and service to all of us.

that was a very gracious, magnanimous, and (I think) much-needed statement for you to make in the interest of peace on the board, if not on earth. To return the compliment, your input and knowledge also has been invaluable and of the very highest caliber to be found. Thank you for sharing your expertise and experience with all of us here.

[Bird Legs]

And I

second that posting by B B.
And may the TTB have a very succesfull future.

[Joe Btfsplk]

Brad's comments

I don't see anything wrong with Brad pointing out the fact that the Tax Book looked before leaping in contrast to competetor Q. I think that points up a clear advantage to using the Tax Book. Nor do I see anything wrong with someone posting about something on the Q web site if it gets there first. For the most part, I'm sure that the Tax Book is the better reference, but if someone else comes up with useful information, it is good to find it here on this message board. There are a lot of places I check to keep informed. This is the best one for tax-related messages. For software questions, the software company sites and message boards would obviously be the best source.

[ChEAr$]

BAck to Social Security for a moment.

Perhaps the mandatory inclusion of total SS on line 20A has something to do with
means testing for Medicare part B?

I dunno.

anyway,
Happy Holidaze,
Santa ChEAr$,