Our CPA misled us

[WITTB]

Interesting thread.

I wonder how the CPA will make out?

The truth seems to be that her husband misled the CPA, by including his withdrawals in the expenses worksheet. It's a shame that led to him telling the guy he'd have a refund, but the only error the CPA made, it seems to me, was expressing any opinion on the outcome before he had time to actually study the details. That was an error, but probably an honest one. I bet this CPA is relatively young yet, those of us with snow on top have long learned not to ever give out 'estimates' when it involves anything more than W-2s.

The best thing to do now, it seems to me, would be to look carefully at filing a 1040X to switch her to MFJ adding his income, and see if change of filing status would offset a significant part of the $2500 he owes on a MFS return. Often it will. Since they would probably still owe something, it will not affect "her refund", but it will reduce the amount she has to pay in 'for him'.

[Bees Knees]

I’d say there is good reason to leave the can of worms un-opened. There appears to be non-tax reasons not to file joint.

[Bees Knees]

We just going to let this one slip into the woods before reaching 4,000 views?

Just one more round before letting it go...

[DTS]

Not number 4,000, but

I really would like to hear from breckgirl to see what the outcome was and if there is anymore to this story.

Dennis

[JohnH]

When I saw this thread pop up again

I swear I thought I heard the music from the "Psycho" shower scene start playing.

[thomtax]

Heck

I would not want to miss being a part of possibly the longest thread going.

[oceanlovin'ea]

I'll do my part

to boost the ratings on this thread.

I too would like to hear from Breckgirl again.

Linda F

[Bird Legs]

Why Not Keep It Going

It is still 4 months before tax season will be starting again.
Or has this one ended yet?
Ditto about hearing the outcome of all this.

[RLymanC]

Cpa

Whay was the question????

[S T]

Do you ever think

Will we ever hear from Breckgirl again???

Sandy

[Black Bart]

Filibuster

Looks like we're shooting for 5K, so I'll do my part.

Ahem: The following wonderfully interesting and informative information is courtesy of the U.S. Census Bureau ('02 count). I'll be paraphrasing (look it up) a bit -- oh, nevermind; don't look it up; I'll tell you what it means. It's restating the meaning of something by using words that are different from the original words of the document. I've noticed famous writer folks do that a lot and, aspiring to also be artsy-smartsy, I'm doin' it too (now you've learned somethin' besides taxes today and you're a better person for it ).

(1) About 75% of all U.S. business firms have no payroll. However, since their sales are only 3 1/2% of total receipts, they are not included in most business statistics, for example, most reports from the Economic Census do not include them (but isn't being 3/4 of all businesses significant, regardless of sales?).

(2) Since 1997, nonemployers have grown faster than employer firms.

(3) Number of firms: all firms - 23,343,821 / employer - 5,697,759 / non-employer - 17,646,062

(4) Employment size of firms
Firms with 1 to 4 employees - 2,695,606
Firms with 5 to 9 " - 1,010,804
Firms with 10 to 19 " - 613,880
Firms with 20 to 99 " - 508,249
Firms with 100 & above " - 869,220
(I've heard politicians say that small businesses employ the majority of people in the U.S. and I guess it's true).

(5) Receipt Size of Employer Firms
Less than $100,000 - 1,291,552
$100,000-$500,000 - 2,387,780
$500,000-$1 million - 819,513
$1 to $5 million - 906,936
Above $5 million - 291,978

Class dismissed.


Simplify; simplify. -- THOREAU

[Bees Knees]

Question: By using the term “non-employer,” are we to assume these are Schedule C or 1065 businesses that do not have employees? Or can an owner/employee of an S Corporation fit into this category? Are these business owners who do all the work themselves? Or are these businesses that pay their workers on a 1099 rather than a W-2? Are we to assume that there is an abuse of the employee / independent contractor issue? Or a combination of all of the above?

We need some tax terminology translation here before we can analyze these numbers.

[Black Bart]

Beats me.

Question:

...are we to assume these are Schedule C or 1065 businesses that do not have employees? Or can an owner/employee of an S Corporation fit into this category? Are these business owners who do all the work themselves? Or are these businesses that pay their workers on a 1099 rather than a W-2? Are we to assume that there is an abuse of the employee / independent contractor issue? Or a combination of all of the above?

Having frequently copied my homework word-for-word out of the encyclopedia, I tend to go with Thoreau, but there's bound to be some of your fellow nit-pickers on the board that know.

[BOB W]

I wouldn't be suprised if 50% + of those small businesses that do not have employees, have "off the books" employees........

[Bird Legs]

Hear from the Breck Girl Again?

Maybe they have left on their missionary trip. Be back next year at this time.