Posts Tagged ‘Moore McLaughlin’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Resolving Conflicts Between Co-Agents on a Power of Attorney

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Having power of attorney over a family member is a big responsibility and sometimes it makes sense to share that responsibility with someone else. But when two people are named co-agents under a power of attorney, conflicts can arise. Unfortunately, if the conflict can’t be resolved, it may be necessary to get a court involved.

A power of attorney allows a person to appoint someone called an “agent or “attorney-in-fact” — to act in his or her place for financial purposes when and if the person ever becomes incapacitated. A power of attorney can name one agent or it can require two or more agents to act together.

If you are acting as a co-agent under a power of attorney, but you and your fellow agent disagree on a course of action or one party has stopped participating in decision making, what can you do? The first thing is to check the wording of the power of attorney document to see if it sets up a procedure for resolving disputes. If the power of attorney itself doesn’t help, you should contact an elder law attorney. The attorney can tell you if your state’s power of attorney laws offer any guidance. There may be a state statute that deals with disputes.

If the dispute still cannot be resolved, the final step may be to file a petition in probate court to let the court decide it. Or if the court finds that one of the agents is not acting according to the incapacitated person’s best interests, it can revoke the agent’s authority. Unfortunately, taking the matter to court takes time and money.

If you are creating a power of attorney and want more than one agent to share responsibility, but want to minimize conflict, you can name two agents and let the agents act separately. Naming more than two agents can get cumbersome and make communication difficult. An alternative to naming co-agents is for the power of attorney document to name agents in sequence. The first-named agent acts alone, but if she cannot serve for some reason, the next person on the list will serve.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning

Dealing with the Credit Card Debt of Seniors

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

The number of seniors facing credit card debt has been growing. The average credit-card debt for consumers over 65 more than doubled from 1992 to 2004, to $4,907. Credit card debt can be especially problematic for seniors, who typically have a fixed income. If you or someone you love is having trouble making credit card payments, there are several options:

  • Try negotiating. A credit counseling agency or attorney may be able to negotiate with the credit card company for lower fees or interest rates. If the debtor is relying solely on Social Security for income, it may even be possible to have the debt forgiven. Note, however, that if the debt is forgiven it can count as income, which may create tax consequences or affect Social Security payments.
  • Reverse mortgage. If the debtor owns a house and is over 62 years old, a reverse mortgage may provide enough money to pay off debt. With a reverse mortgage, instead of paying the bank money to build up equity, homeowners use the equity in their homes to take out loans. The loan does not have to be paid back until the house is sold or the homeowner dies. While reverse mortgages may look like no-lose propositions on the surface, they also have some significant downsides.
  • Tap into life insurance. Permanent life insurance policies build a cash value, which can be used as collateral for a loan or withdrawn from the account. This money can be used for any purpose, including paying down credit card debt. Keep in mind, however, that loans or withdrawals will reduce the death benefit.
  • Bankruptcy. Filing for bankruptcy is not an easy solution. In 2005, a tough bankruptcy law went in to effect, making it much more difficult to get bankruptcy protection. For example, bankruptcy is available only to individuals whose income is below a certain level, and the homestead exemption, which allows you to protect all or some of the equity in your home, is stricter. Before filing for bankruptcy be sure to discuss your options with an attorney.
  • Do nothing. It may sound crazy, but one option is to do nothing and let the credit card companies sue the debtor. If the debtor owns a house, the court may put a lien on it. If not, the debt may be written off or reduced. An attorney can tell you if this is the right step for you take.

Regardless of what steps the debtor takes, debtors have the right not to be harassed by credit card companies. The Fair Debt Collection Act prohibits certain conduct by credit agencies attempting to collect debts. For example, creditors may contact debtors only between the hours of 8am and 9pm, may not use abusive or profane language, and must stop contacting debtors if the debtors request it in writing.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Bankruptcy, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Financial workout

Congress passes bill repealing expanded 1099 information reporting requirements

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

On April 5, the Senate by a vote of 87-12 approved H.R. 4, the “Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011.” The measure, which retroactively repeals expanded Form 1099 information reporting rules added by recent legislation, was passed by the House on March 3 by a vote of 314-112. Thus, H.R. 4 (the Act) is cleared for the President’s expected signature.

Here are highlights of the tax changes in the Act.

Original information reporting rules. Before amendment by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-240) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, P.L. 111-148), Code Sec. 6041 generally required payments totaling at least $600 in a single calendar year to a single recipient to be reported to IRS. Reporting on Form 1099 was required only when the payor was considered to be engaged in a trade or business and has made the payment in connection with that trade or business. The type of payment that most commonly triggered the reporting requirement was payment for services.

There were a number of exemptions from Code Sec. 6041 ‘s reporting requirements under prior law, notably including payments to corporations (which were exempt under Reg. § 1.6041-3(p)(1)).

Pre-Act law—changes made by 2010 legislation. Beginning in 2012, Sec. 9006 of PPACA added payments of amounts in consideration for any type of property and gross proceeds—i.e., it added payments for goods or other property—to the list of payments subject to information reporting.

Sec. 9006 of PPACA further provided that, beginning in 2012, payments to non-tax-exempt corporations—which had previously been exempt from the reporting requirement—would be subject to information reporting.

Additionally, for payments made after 2010, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provided that, subject to limited exceptions, a person receiving rental income from real estate would be treated as engaged in the trade or business of renting property for information reporting purposes. In particular, rental income recipients making payments of $600 or more to a service provider (for example, a painter or plumber) in the course of earning rental income would have to provide an information return to the service provider and IRS.

New law. For payments made after December 31, 2011, the Act repeals the provisions in Sec. 9006 that impose a reporting requirement for payments to corporations and payments for goods or other property. (Code Sec. 6041(a), Code Sec. 6041(i), and Code Sec. 6041(j), as amended by Act Sec. 2) And for payments made after December 31, 2010, the Act also repeals application of the information reporting requirements to recipients of rental income from real estate who are not otherwise considered to be engaged in the trade or business of renting property. (Code Sec. 6041(h), as repealed by Act Sec. 3)

In other words, under the Act, the information reporting rules effectively revert to the way they read before enactment of PPACA and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010.

Revenue offset. The Act provides an offset for the lost revenue from repealing the new information reporting provisions, estimated at $21.9 billion. It increases the amount of “excess advance payments” of the premium assistance credit (enacted as part of the 2010 health care reform legislation to help lower-income individuals acquire affordable health insurance coverage) that a taxpayer must repay under Code Sec. 36B(f)(2) for tax years ending after December 31, 2013. The credit is available for a taxpayer who does not receive health insurance through his employer (or his spouse’s employer) and whose income falls between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty line (FPL), based on the most recently filed tax return.

Under pre-Act law, if the taxpayer’s income increases such that the credit exceeds that to which his current income level actually entitles him to, but his income is still under 500% of FPL, he had to repay some credit amounts. The limit on amounts he had to repay were capped and ranged from $600 to $3,500.

New law. Under the Act, for tax years ending after December 31, 2013, the repayment caps are increased for taxpayers with household income of at least 200% but less than 400% of FPL, and full repayment is required for taxpayers whose incomes exceed 400% of FPL. (Code Sec. 36B(f)(2)(B)(i), as amended by Act Sec. 4)

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Responsibility for a Deceased Relative’s Debts

Friday, April 1st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

The loss of a loved one is tough to begin with, but if the loved one left debts behind, it can be even tougher. Family members generally should not have to pay for a decedent’s debts, but it is important to know your rights because collection agencies may target the decedent’s relatives.

Usually the loved one’s estate is responsible for paying any debts. If the estate does not have enough money, the debts will go unpaid. The debt collectors may not collect payment from relatives (unless they were co-signers or guarantors). However, if you are the spouse of the decedent, you may have responsibility for any debts that were jointly held. Depending on state law, some assets — such as a house or car — may be exempt from debt collection. You should talk to an attorney to determine your responsibility, if any.

If a debt collector contacts you, give the collector the contact information for the personal representative (also called the “executor”) who is handling the estate. It is the personal representative’s responsibility to make sure all bills are paid. Whatever you do, do not give any personal information to debt collectors. Scam artists sometimes pose as debt collectors to prey on relatives.

If a debt collector won’t stop contacting you, send a certified letter to the collector saying you do not want to be contacted again. Once the collector receives the letter, the collector can contact you only to tell you that there will be no further contact or to inform you of a lawsuit. Report any problems with debt collectors to your state’s attorney general or to the Federal Trade Commission.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Financial workout, Tax planning

Statutory glitch reduces portable estate tax exclusion for some surviving spouses

Thursday, March 31st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Effective for estates of decedents dying after 2010 and before 2013, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) allows a deceased spouse’s unused estate tax exclusion to be shifted to the surviving spouse. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has released an errata sheet pointing out an error in the statutory language defining “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.” As explained below, the current statutory language may result in a lower-than-intended exclusion for the surviving spouse of an individual who was previously married and received a portable estate tax exclusion from his or her former spouse. The JCT says a technical correction may be needed to fix the defect.

Background. A credit (the “unified credit”) is allowed against the estate tax imposed on U.S. citizens and residents. The credit is equal to the tentative tax on the “applicable exclusion amount,” determined under the estate tax rate schedule.

Pre-2010 Tax Relief Act law did not allow for any unused portion of a decedent’s applicable exclusion amount to be used by the estate of the decedent’s surviving spouse.

Portable exclusion. Under the 2010 Tax Relief Act, for estates of decedents dying after 2010 and before 2013, the applicable exclusion amount is the sum of (1) the “basic exclusion amount” and (2) in the case of a surviving spouse, the “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.”

The basic exclusion amount is $5 million with an adjustment for inflation after 2011.

The “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount” is the lesser of:

(1) the basic exclusion amount, or

(2) the excess of the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse dying after December 31, 2010, of the surviving spouse, over the amount on which the tentative tax on the estate of the deceased spouse is determined.

A deceased spousal unused exclusion amount may not be taken into account by a surviving spouse unless the executor of the estate of the deceased spouse files an estate tax return on which the amount is computed, and makes an election on the return that the amount may be taken into account by the surviving spouse. The election, once made, is irrevocable. No election may be made if the estate tax return of the deceased spouse is filed after the due date (including extensions) for filing the return.

A surviving spouse may use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount in addition to his or her own $5 million exclusion for taxable transfers made during life or at death.

Illustration 1: Husband 1 dies in 2011, having made taxable transfers of $3 million and having no taxable estate. An election is made on his estate tax return to permit Wife to use his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. As of his death, Wife has made no taxable gifts. Thereafter, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1), which she may use for lifetime gifts or for transfers at death. (Committee Report)

If a surviving spouse is predeceased by more than one spouse, the amount of unused exclusion that is available for use by the surviving spouse is limited to the lesser of $5 million or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse.  This so-called “last deceased spouse” limitation applies whether or not the last deceased spouse has any unused exclusion, and whether or the estate of the last deceased spouse makes a timely election to allow the surviving spouse to use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.

Illustration 2: Assume the same facts as in illustration (1), except that Wife subsequently marries Husband 2. He predeceases Wife, having made $4 million in taxable transfers and having no taxable estate. An election is made on his estate tax return to permit Wife to use his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. Although the combined amount of unused exclusion of Husband 1 and Husband 2 is $3 million ($2 million for Husband 1 and $1 million for Husband 2), only Husband 2′s $1 million unused exclusion is available for use by Wife because the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount is limited to the lesser of the basic exclusion amount ($5 million) or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse of the surviving spouse. Thereafter, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $6 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $1 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 2), which she may use for lifetime gifts or for transfers at death. (Committee Report)

Remarried surviving spouses who predecease new spouse. The following illustration, based on an example in the Committee Report, says that if a surviving spouse remarries, and then dies survived by a new spouse, the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount included for the surviving spouse’s estate is determined by taking into account the deceased spouse’s applicable exclusion amount and not just the basic exclusion amount.

Illustration 3: Assume the same facts as in Illustrations 1 and 2, except that Wife predeceases Husband 2. Following Husband 1′s death, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1). Wife made no taxable transfers and has a taxable estate of $3 million. An election is made on Wife’s estate tax return to permit Husband 2 to use Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount, which is $4 million (Wife’s $7 million applicable exclusion amount less her $3 million taxable estate). Under the provision, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount is increased by $4 million, i.e., the amount of Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. (Committee Report)

This view does not seem to reflect Code Sec. 2010(c)(4), which states that the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount equals the lesser of the basic exclusion amount (i.e., $5 million), or the excess of the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse of such surviving spouse over the amount on which the tentative estate tax is determined under Code Sec. 2001(b)(1) on the estate of such deceased spouse. Rather, under the current statutory language, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would seem to be increased by only $2 million.

The JCT Errata sheet confirms that the current statutory language does not support the conclusion in Illustration 3. It does so by adding a footnote to the example in the Committee Report on the 2010 Tax Relief Act. The footnote states that a technical correction may be necessary to replace the reference to the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse of the surviving spouse with a reference to the applicable exclusion amount of such last deceased spouse, so that the statute reflects Congressional intent.

Under the technical correction, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be increased by $4 million.

Under the technical correction, it would be possible for the new spouse’s applicable exclusion amount to exceed $10 million, the combined amount of the basic exclusion amount of the surviving spouse and the new spouse. For example, if, in Illustration 3, the Wife’s taxable estate were only $1 million, then Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be increased by $6 million (Wife’s applicable exclusion amount of $7 million less $1 million of taxable transfers). Thus, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be $11 million (Wife’s spousal unused exclusion amount of $6 million, plus Husband 2′s basic exclusion amount of $5 million).

Allowing a surviving spouse to wind up with a more than $10 million applicable exclusion amount is somewhat inconsistent with the last spouse limitation. That’s because the last spouse limitation prevents a spouse who survived two or more deceased spouses from getting an applicable exclusion amount that exceeds the combined basic exclusion amounts of a husband and wife. This combined figure presently is $10 million, but could exceed $10 million with inflation adjustments after 2011.

There is no word on when this or any other technical corrections may be forthcoming. Hopefully, IRS will address the matter when it provides guidance on the new portable exclusion.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

IRS explains how DC’s Emancipation Day can affect filing and payment deadlines

Monday, February 21st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

The IRS had earlier announced that because of the Emancipation Day holiday in the District of Columbia (DC), the due date of Form 1040 for 2010 is April 18, 2011, instead of April 15, 2011. Now, in Notice 2011-17, the IRS has explained the mechanics of this deferral, and how it may apply in other years.

Background. Under Code Sec. 6072(a), income tax returns must be filed on April 15. When April 15 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, a return is considered timely filed if filed on the next succeeding day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, defined as legal holiday in DC.

Under DC law, Emancipation Day, April 16, is a legal holiday. The twists and turns in DC law regarding this holiday produce the following results for filing deadlines for all tax forms and payments that must be filed or completed on or before April 15, including the Form 1040 series tax returns:

  • When April 16 falls on Saturday, then Friday, April 15, is the observed date for Emancipation Day and the filing deadline for all tax forms and payments required to be filed or completed on or before April 15, is Monday, April 18.

That’s the situation this year, when April 16 falls on a Saturday, which means Emancipation Day will be observed on Friday, Apr. 15, 2011. Thus, the filing deadline for all tax forms and payments required to be filed or completed on or before April 15 will be Monday, April 18, 2011.

  • When April 16 falls on Sunday, then Monday, April 17, is the observed date for Emancipation Day, and the filing deadline for all tax forms and payments required to be filed or completed on or before April 15 is Tuesday, April 18.
  • When April 16 falls on Monday, then that day is the observed date for Emancipation Day, and the filing deadline for all forms and payments required to be filed or completed on or before April 15 is Tuesday, April 17.

The last time this happened was in 2007.

IRS said it will widely publicize the Emancipation Day rules in affected years to remind the public that the filing deadline is extended.

In all likelihood, the new Notice was issued in response to a flood of questions about why the filing deadline was deferred to April 18, even though April 15 will fall on a Friday this year.

The deadline deferral to April 18, 2011, applies to a host of deadlines for filing and paying, including:

… Requests for an automatic six-month tax-filing extension on an individual return for calendar-year 2010.

… Tax-year 2010 balance-due payments.

… For calendar-year taxpayers, individual estimated tax payments for the first quarter of 2011.

… For calendar-year taxpayers, tax-year 2010 contributions to a Roth or traditional IRA.

… Corporation income tax returns, including S corporations, for a fiscal year ending on January 31, 2011, and any balance due.

… For calendar-year corporations, the estimated tax payment for the first quarter of 2011.

… Calendar-year estate and trust income tax returns (Form 1041) and any balance due.

… Calendar-year 2010 partnership returns (Form 1065).

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in 1031 Exchanges, Current Events, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Ways and Means OKs two competing bills to repeal new 1099 requirements

Monday, February 21st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

On February 17, the House Ways and Means Committee by a vote of 21-15 approved. H.R. 705, the Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayment Act of 2011. Upon passage of H.R. 705, the text of a competing bill (H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011), which was approved by voice vote earlier in the day, was incorporated into H.R. 705. There were no other amendments adopted to H.R.705.

Both bills seek to modify or repeal the new requirements imposed by Sec. 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which provides that payments for goods and payments made to corporations (that are not tax-exempt) will be subject to information reporting beginning in 2012. H.R. 705 also seeks to repeal Code Sec. 6041(h), which was added by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and which treats recipients of rental income from real estate as engaged in the trade or business of renting property for information reporting purposes beginning in 2011. However, H.R. 705 provides an offset for the estimated $21.9 billion cost of repeal, whereas H.R. 4 does not.

Also on February 17, the Senate by a vote of 92-2 invoked cloture (i.e. voted to cut off debate) on S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, which includes a provision to repeal the Sec. 9006 reporting requirements.  Unless time is yielded back, there remains 30 hours of debate on the bill before a vote on final passage of the measure.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

IRS provides relief to tax return preparers having difficulty obtaining a PTIN

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

In Notice 2011-11, the IRS has provided relief to tax return preparers who have made a good faith effort to obtain a preparer tax identification number (PTIN) by allowing them to prepare tax returns for compensation, even though they have not received a PTIN.

Background. In January 2010, the IRS released a study on the U.S. return preparer industry carrying detailed recommendations on new standards for preparers other than attorneys, certified public accountants (CPAs), and enrolled agents (EAs). Subsequently, the IRS rolled out a new set of rules subjecting tax return preparers who are not attorneys, CPAs or EAs to new registration requirements, including mandatory use of PTINs for tax returns or refund claims filed after December 31, 2010, competency testing, continuing education (CE) rules, and ethical standards (i.e., Circular 230). Under the rules, all individuals who are compensated for preparing, or assisting in the preparation of, all or substantially all of a tax return or claim for refund of tax must have a PTIN.

In early January 2011, the IRS issued Notice 2011-6, which dialed back some of the most controversial aspects of the new tax return preparer initiative. It provides guidance on the implementation of the new regulations requiring tax return preparers to obtain a PTIN for tax returns or refund claims filed after December 31, 2010. It also softened key aspects of earlier guidance. For example, it provides that properly supervised nonsigning preparers are not required to undergo a competency exam and are not subject to the CE requirements.

Notice 2011-6, states that, unless otherwise provided in it or other guidance, the IRS expects tax return preparers to comply with the new requirement to obtain a PTIN as soon as possible. Tax return preparers who used the new online application system available through IRS’s website at http://www.irs.gov/taxpros generally will receive their PTIN number when the application process has been completed. Preparers who apply for a PTIN using the paper Form W-12, IRS Paid Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) Application, generally will receive their PTIN four to six weeks after the application and payment are received.

However, the IRS recognizes that some tax return preparers are experiencing or may experience difficulty in obtaining a PTIN. If preparers using the online system are unsuccessful in obtaining a PTIN, the IRS system will notify them that their application was not processed and provide appropriate instructions. Complying with these instructions before the preparation of a tax return or refund claim for compensation will establish that these individuals were making a good faith effort to comply with the new PTIN requirement.

Preparer relief. In Notice 2011-11, the IRS provides that any tax return preparer receiving: (1) notice from the IRS that it was unable to process their online PTIN application, or (2) an acknowledgment of receipt of the paper PTIN application, will be allowed to prepare and file tax returns or claims for refund for compensation after the tax return preparer complies with all instructions provided in the notification or acknowledgment letter. This relief only applies during the 2011 filing season (i.e., 2010 returns) and does not apply to individuals who engage in conduct that constitutes a willful violation of the applicable duties and restrictions set out in, or disreputable conduct under §10.51 of, Circular 230.

A tax return preparer may use a PTIN issued before September 28, 2010 (or his Social Security number if he does not have a previously issued PTIN) as his PTIN during the 2011 filing season or until they receive a new PTIN, whichever is earlier. Once a new PTIN is obtained, the new PTIN must be used.

Preparers who rely on the relief provision of Notice 2011-6 to prepare returns or refund claims for compensation must pay the $64.25 PTIN application fee for the 2011 filing season, even though the processing of their application may be delayed. Payment must be submitted as instructed by IRS. Preparers who rely on this relief must keep a copy of the notification or acknowledgment letter as documentation of their good faith effort in the event that the preparer is contacted by IRS during the 2011 filing season or in the future.

IRS notes that tax return preparers who applied for a PTIN using paper Form W-12 before Notice 2011-11 is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (February 14, 2011) and have not received a PTIN generally will receive a PTIN or an acknowledgment of receipt of the PTIN application within six weeks of IRS’s receipt of the PTIN application or within six weeks of Notice 2011-11 ‘s date of publication, whichever is later. Preparers who apply for a PTIN using paper Form W-12 after Notice 2011-11 ‘s date of publication generally will receive a PTIN or an acknowledgment of receipt of the PTIN application within six weeks from the date the application is submitted. For individuals who do not attempt to submit a PTIN application via the online system, the submission of a processible paper Form W-12 and payment generally constitutes a good faith attempt to comply with the requirement to obtain a PTIN.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Current Events, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »