To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.

Discussion:Tired of the generalizations

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> General Chat --> Tired of the generalizations


YankeeRse (talk|edits) said:

3 April 2010
I had a taxpayer come to me after VITA told her that she wasn't eligible to file head of household. She questioned VITA's advice because her CPA had filed that way the previous year. The facts are, that the taxpayer owns and maintains a home in which her 38 year old son also resides. Her son is not disabled and has earned income of roughly $10k both in 2008 and 2009. I told her that VITA was correct, showing her the Pub 17 chart that clearly shows she is not eligible to file HH and recommended that she return to her CPA to file an amended return for 2008 since I would have to charge her to do it. She left to return to the CPA, relieved to know that she would only have to pay back a few hundred bucks.

An hour or so later, she calls telling me that her CPA says that I am an idiot, that she does qualify for HH and that she should know better than to get advice about brain surgery from an auto mechanic.

While I agree that some HRB employees bite off more than they can chew, I, for one, have amended many a CPA-prepared return and the designation doesn't guarantee that you have more tax knowledge than I have. In fact, sometimes, I have far more.

Another Blockhead.

Tax Writer (talk|edits) said:

3 April 2010
Rose, filing status and dependency are two very separate issues. If you look on the table 2-1 of the 2009 tax year edition of Pub 17 (page 25), you will see that you can still use a (single) son who is living at home as the basis for Head of Household filing status EVEN IF the taxpayer cannot claim the dependency exemption for that person, if certain rules are met. It is likely that the taxpayer is paying more than 1/2 of keeping up a main home for that person.

Tax Writer

YankeeRse (talk|edits) said:

3 April 2010
I disagree. A qualifying relative has to be your dependent to qualify you for head of household. The son is not a qualifying child because of his age.

YankeeRse (talk|edits) said:

3 April 2010
Look at table 3-1.

Tax Writer (talk|edits) said:

3 April 2010
If age was a disqualifier, then dependent parents would not not qualify a taxpayer for HOH, and they do. In fact, a dependent parent does not even have to live with the taxpayer in order for the taxpayer to claim HOH.


Tax Writer

YankeeRse (talk|edits) said:

3 April 2010
Parents being the only exception.

YankeeRse (talk|edits) said:

3 April 2010
Age disqualifies the son for qualifying child.........qualifying relative must be your dependent to qualify you for head of household without exception.

CPAdavid (talk|edits) said:

4 April 2010
Agree with YankeeRse. Age is the disqualifier here.

YankeeRse (talk|edits) said:

4 April 2010
The point from the beginning was that none of us is right all the time, and, while I appreciate the knowledge of those that contribute to this forum, I don't think this is the place to generalize HRB professionals as less educated than the rest of you. We know how you feel about us....believe me...we hear it everyday.

Tax Writer (talk|edits) said:

4 April 2010
Hey, YankeeRse, don't let it get you down. And I've met a lot of tax pros that started out at Block and are now much more successful than me (and I do pretty well).

The comment that CPA made was just rude. Let it slide off your back. We can bounce ideas off each other here, and I like that. I learn something new every day.

I totally missed that you mentioned the income on the son, by the way. He makes more than the personal exemption amount...You're right.

See! Doesn't that make you feel better?

Tax Writer

Kyea (talk|edits) said:

4 April 2010
Also, don't forget that CPAdavid weighed in on YankeeRse's behalf in this discussion. So, we need not generalize about anyone, including CPAs.

YankeeRse (talk|edits) said:

4 April 2010
I knew I was right. Just sayin'.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

4 April 2010
Generalizations are just that, generalizations and should be taken that way. I've used them in the past as well. I've also stated in the past that being a CPA or an EA doesn't make you a better tax preparer, or a better controller. It only means you have initials after your name.

Now, those initials do come with added perks because of the perception that is given to them. I can ask for more at a job because I have CPA designation. I'll still have to prove myself, but it does mean I have achieved something. It doesn't mean I know everything about the tax code and that many others don't know a lot more than I do.

Now, you work for block, and their model is their own creation. You have chosen to use that model in making yourself money. The perceptions of the overall block preparer is one you have chosen to live with and one you will live with until you leave or until block decides to change it's business model.

There are many Block professionals on this forum who have a great knowledge of the tax code. I know I. personally determine peoples tax knowledge based on their answers and don't discount that because they are from block, or aren't a CPA or if the act as profile police <G>. the answers they give gives them their credibility here.

Hey, it's probably the same deal with auto mechanics. You work at jiffy lube, you just an oil change guy, not a REAL mechanic.

YankeeRse (talk|edits) said:

5 April 2010
Point taken, Fstein.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools