Our CPA misled us

[JohnH]

When I saw this thread pop up again

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

[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

[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...

[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.

[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'.

[Joe Btfsplk]

Swag

Interesting thread.

I wonder how the CPA will make out?

Sometimes in the rush of April 15th in working extensions, I use the SWAG method to arrive at the amount to send with the extension, if any.

The SWAG method? Scientific Wild A** Guess! Learned that from my statistics professor many years ago.

When I worked as an auditor for a major corporation, we sometimes joked about applying a SWAG factor to our calculations in making audit claims. One girl who was a fairly new auditor heard about the SWAG factor and turned in some worksheets which included an adjustment for the SWAG factor. I was reviewing her audit and saw it and started laughing and showing it to another member of the staff. He explained the meaning of the SWAG factor to her and she was half embarrassed and half amused.

[TheGoodnShawn]

Rush Hour 3

Boy, I was about to go watch Rush Hour 3 with Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan, but shooo, there are some real comedians in this forum......I sit back and chuckle often!

[veritas]

To bad

she didn't ask for free marital advice.

[TheGoodnShawn]

Get a New CPA

I wish I would have joined this discussion earlier. The original poster seemed to be very very defensive....and I'm like, "How dare you" lol

You come to a tax forum's message board seeking free advice to a scenario that is half told, then snap at everyone who doesn't reply the way you think they should...

Well, that's fine, the solution to this problem is this, if you need further advice from a CPA other than your original preparer, you should research and call another one to review your return for you....of course there will be a small fee

[Jiggers]

Is this #100?

Interesting thread.

I wonder how the CPA will make out?

Sometimes in the rush of April 15th in working extensions, I use the SWAG method to arrive at the amount to send with the extension, if any.

The SWAG method? Scientific Wild A** Guess! Learned that from my statistics professor many years ago.

[Jiggers]

Is this #100?

Interesting thread.

[JohnH]

I don't mind giving them a guess

I frequently give them a guess, but I emphasize that they can't rely on it because they could have made an error or I could have made one and that nothing counts until the return is finished. If they complain that I'm being too vague, I tell them to look at the warranty on any of the computer software they have ever purchased .

[oceanlovin'ea]

Slowing down?

Are we going to make it to 100? Not much action the last few days.

I think we all learned something from this thread about making sure our clients understand what we tell them and NOT to give even an educated guess on what they will owe.

Linda F

[LTS]

Original Post

I will add my 1/2 cents worth.
Believe this thread has gone about as far as it can go, unless someone can
shed some new light on the original post.
And as much light has been shed, don't know if there is any left.

I have tried to lurk and be #100, but someone else will get the prize.

The thing that struck me about the original post was that I thought $2500 and 16!s was too many explaination points. Maybe 5 or 6 at the most!

[TMI Moderator]

Please don't take it personally if your post fell victim to the clear cutting operation. I'm sure I missed some that should have been cut under the same principles, and may have cut some that should have remained.

The purpose is to make sure the discussions don't get out of hand and at least vaguely fit the definition of "on topic." Our goal is not to deem participants' comments as worthy or not. However, we have had experience where the tone of the discussions began to resemble a contentious cowpie hurling derby. We erred on the side of letting the cowpies fly unhindered, and it wasn't long until the forum became dominated by a very few individuals. As a result we took a harder line. Since we've done that, the number of different participants in this forum has increased dramatically. That's our goal.

Please keep in mind that as you become familiar with other participants and feel more free to let fly with what might be good-natured ribbing, there are potential participants viewing as guests who may want to join in the discussions. If they're looking over the fence and see muck flying, they'll keep walking. Then we all lose.

I ask for your understanding of the challenges of maintaining standards on a forum that is open to so very many people with so many different perspectives and goals.

We appreciate everyone's continued efforts at keeping the tone of this forum respectful and valuable to tax professionals.