Claiming a dependent

[sali]

I have a client who has custody of his grandson and the grandson qualifies as a dependent of the client by IRS definitions. The client would like to claim the grandson as a dependent and is entitled to. However, the client's daughter (the child's mother) says she is going to claim the child even though the child does not live with her and she provides no support. Can my client notify the IRS of the circumstances so he can claim the grandson as a dependent and his tax return is not rejected?

[BOB W]

You have two choices> 1- make sure that you file his return electronically FIRST (before mother) or 2- paper file with all proof of dependency issues enclosed.

[erchess]

A comment

You have two choices> 1- make sure that you file his return electronically FIRST (before mother) or 2- paper file with all proof of dependency issues enclosed.

I have the impression that Bob knows more about taxes than I do so I hesitate to disagree. However, regarding his number two, I have always been told that it is useless to send with a return documents that are not required under the circumstances. I have always been told that these extraneous documents are never read and simply are shredded.

[bertrans]

Dependent

I have the impression that Bob knows more about taxes than I do so I hesitate to disagree. However, regarding his number two, I have always been told that it is useless to send with a return documents that are not required under the circumstances. I have always been told that these extraneous documents are never read and simply are shredded.

If your client's return is examined, he will be asked to submit the documentation. Whatever is attached to the original return will in all likelihood never be seen.

[BOB W]

I guess you know more than I do. Of that, I don't disagree. I'm just a low-end preparer that plugs along doing the best he can. The internal workings of the IRS are foreign to me and I'm glad that some "insiders" jumped in to correct a mis-statement in my post. Keep up the good work so I can continue learning.

[Black Bart]

"Inside" Information

I guess you know more than I do. Of that, I don't disagree. I'm just a low-end preparer that plugs along doing the best he can. The internal workings of the IRS are foreign to me and I'm glad that some "insiders" jumped in to correct a mis-statement in my post. Keep up the good work so I can continue learning.

Say Bob,

My wife and I were havin' an argument while watchin' a Dr. Phil show the other day and he said you shouldn't go to sleep mad. Well, I haven't slept in two days now and I've just got to get over it. Listen, I don't think the boys meant to glitch-slap you like you're maybe thinkin' they did.

You're a sharp tax-prepper who (I think) is just relating his experience with IRS -- trying to understand their procedures and draw conclusions in light of that experience. I think the others guys are just doing the same. Erchess (the master of all things off-beat and/or off-the-wall) has a good track record of gentlemanly concern for others here; he said "...I hesitate to disagree..." and "...I have always been told..." Further, he noted that "I have the impression that Bob knows more about taxes than I do" (wish I could get insulted like that once in a while). Then, well-versed taxer Bertrans (undoubtedly a knowledgeable man since he recently complimented me on my ranting/hogwash {Thanks, Bert!}) qualified his opinion with "...in all likelihood..." which is surely not the same as declaring it to be an absolute fact. So I think they both meant well and no personal slight intended (correct me if I'm wrong, boys).

In a recent post to the "Filed as dependent when independent" thread, you said "file first" and send documentation to get the dependency exemption -- I agreed (it usually happens to me that way), but a time or two I've seen it go to the other guy. The IRS rep may very well give it to the first EF sending proof, but it's also entirely possible he/she will disregard the stuff and request it again later.

Anyway, the point being, on many "procedures" there doesn't seem to be an absolute certain way that they're always handled and IRS seems to be consistently inconsistent. Ex-agents (real "insiders") have posted here saying it should be done "this way" (although that may just be the way it was done where he/she worked -- whether or not it's correct for the IRS as a whole is another question altogether), but we're not dealing with them; we're dealing with some other rep who may not know what's right and will just do what's convenient. Different clerks/districts/attitudes may vary the results 180 degrees. Years ago a NY-based IRS agent told me an exemption for live-in girlfriends (once a "hot" topic), probably would not be allowed in my "Bible Belt" (Arkansas) IRS district, but that he routinely granted them in his district (dadgum bunch'a Yankee heathens -- guess one has to "immerse himself in the New York community" to get that there tax break).

When clients ask "What'll IRS do if I...?"; we say "This, this, and this!" But since we don't work for IRS, we can't really "know" what will happen and we're giving our best educated guess of how it will play out based on our experience in dealing with IRS. Mostly it goes like we think; but occasionally, although I'm positive I've got the straight dope, IRS has informed me (ignorantly and firmly) that I'm (pick one) uninformed, misinformed, ill-informed. So I dial again and...sometimes...I get a rep who agrees with me 100%.

Blessed are they who take things lightly -- Black Bart (he of the thin-skin)

[fliszt]

Be the first

to file ---- hmm. I've done this with my daughter/grandson, but it was years ago. But, somewhere I thought I read something that made me be a bit careful when filing to make sure the tax return was correct and contained all the information the first time through. What I seem to recall from somewhere, (the brain doesn't work all the time) is that if one files just to be "first" without all the correct information, it is against some IRS rule. Originally I thought of filing just to be "first" and then after she received all the 1099's, I would go back and file an ammendment. I seem to remember that was a strict no-no, but that could just be my age playing tricks.
Larry

[erchess]

I agree with Larry that

I have always been told that a tax professional can't file a return knowing with certainty that it will have to be amended because it is not accurate and complete to the best of his or her knowledge. I always adhered to that rule strictly but two firms that taught me this rule encouraged the practice of agreeing with the client that he or she had not told us thus and such and then filing the to-be-amended return.

In reference to Black Bart's last post I did not take Bob W's post to which Bart referred amiss. I still think Bob is one of the more knowledgeable people on this board. We are all ignorant, but of different things. The wonderful thing about this board is that we can discuss our misunderstandings and eventually all realize the truth of the matter.

[bertrans]

dependent

...and thanks! I mean it.

[oceanlovin'ea]

File first

I don't think Bob W meant to file an return that was not accurate just to be first. The grandfather should just make sure that as SOON as he has all his information, he gets to his tax professional and files his taxes ASAP, not lollygagging around until the middle of February or March to do it.

Linda

[travis bickle]

make an error ???

good day,

here is what happened when i worked at the irs (your experiences may vary).

when a paper return arrives, it gets sent to a department that "marks it up" with various abbreviations/symbols/letters/numbers/etc. when a letter is attached to the return, it is "redlined".

the reason is -- after it is marked up, the return is sent to the transcribers who MUST enter the data precisely as the taxpayer entered it, AND as it was marked up.

if there are no mistakes in the return, the return then goes thru the system and NO PERSON WILL SEE YOUR ATTACHED LETTER.

but, if there is a mistake on the return (let's say someone is due a refund of $1000.00, but the taxpayer "accidentally" entered $10000.00 for the refund). the transcriber is obligated to enter the data PRECISELY as the taxpayer put it down on the return. obviously, the irs computer will note the mistake and that particular return is then routed to the ERROR RESOLUTION SECTION.

once the return is there, it will be handled by a human being who will examine ALL documents -- including the redlined letter -- and then route the return to the appropriate department for further processing.

i hope this explains why some people have had "experience x" while others have had "experience y" when attaching a document to a return.

this raises an ethical question -- do you submit a return with an obvious arithmetical mistake?

and, i hope this came out in english -- i have not had any sleep for about 24 hours.

bcnul8r

[Bees Knees]

once the return is there, it will be handled by a human being who will examine ALL documents -- including the redlined letter -- and then route the return to the appropriate department for further processing.

Nice to know a human being is somewhere in the mix of all that.

Here is a suggestion...maybe when someone attaches something to a return, the IRS ought to take note of it...since the preparer is following the instructions written by an IRS human being that said to attach something...

Just a suggestion.

[BOB W]

Thank you all for your kind words. I am the first to acknowledge my many short comings and I bow to anyone that differs to my opinion, if I am not sure of the correct answer.

Yes it is true, I did not mean to say to file an incomplete return just to "file first". But I did say to attach all dependency documentation if you can't be first to file, or at least that is what I meant.

Based on Travis Bickle, Hello Travis it is great to have you as a contributor, my including the attachments may have caused the paper work to be reviewed when the dedendency issue would not go through during transcription, if that is how it works.

Travis I appreciate you coming on board to enlighten ALL of us of some inner workings at IRS, it greatly enhances the value of the board and it members. Please stay around we need your input.

__________________________________________________ _______________
the only tax knowledge advantage I have is age, and I question that all the time.

[travis bickle]

dependent claimed twice

good day,

(first, many thanks BOB W for the kind words. i have been "lurking" here for some time and a number of you folks have taught me a few things)

the situation at the irs is that the transcribers can only transcribe into the system information that is on an irs form -- there is no computer screen to input a "free flowing letter" and, obviously, there is no way the irs computer could read such a letter.

since the tax return is a legal document the transcriber is obligated to enter the data precisely as the taxpayer prepared the form (hence my earlier post about putting a deliberate mistake on an irs form).

i have no idea of your client's situation, but it seems to me to be better to file electronically. if the return rejects because someone else claimed the dependent, print out the error reject sheet and attach it as the first page of the entire return and mail the return in with or without any supporting documents. the irs in turn will notify both claimants of the situation and request proof of dependency. then you client can send the paperwork to the examiner and the case should be resolved (at his end).

i absolutely understand that this may mean a long wait because of that process, but your client has to remember that it is not his fault, nor is it the fault of the irs -- it is the fault of a third party trying to doing something illegal.

[erchess]

But Linda

I don't think Bob W meant to file an return that was not accurate just to be first. The grandfather should just make sure that as SOON as he has all his information, he gets to his tax professional and files his taxes ASAP, not lollygagging around until the middle of February or March to do it.

Linda

Someone (not Bob if I remember correctly) suggested the common practice in these cases of filing electronically without the child to get whatever refund this leads to and then subsequently amending the return to include the child. I have worked in two different firms that would engage in this behavior if the taxpayer would agree orally with the preparer that if there was ever a fuss the taxpayer would say that at the first interview the child had not been brought up. Both firms admitted to me that it wasn't technically legal to do this but expressed the perception that the IRS did not really care and it made the clients happy so they wanted me to do it.