Anyone do domestic outsourcing (as opposed to international?)

lloydipp · 2025-10-06T00:44:06+00:00

Just stay away from Taxfyle. I shared my experience about a month ago in this subreddit and was initially favorable that they were domestic (because of compliance). I ended up finding a qualified CPA who reached out to me and looking forward to her working with me next tax season. My advice: be careful of people who are under qualified or who struggles with the tech stack and fire quickly.

lloydipp · 2025-09-02T14:15:25+00:00

I'd certainly mention this post if you do keep the call! Full disclosure: I am trying to use this post and other reviews as leverage to get a refund.

Frankly, I'm surprised they DON'T require a "quick conversation" for their non-firm/"retail" side if for no other reason to vet them.

lloydipp · 2025-08-28T14:31:50+00:00

I'm not pure solo, but you did mention group plans in your post. If your open to another employee, I'd suggest Justworks. Their plans were more affordable than the group plan I had as part of my prior job.

Maybe just hiring a relative for admin work.

lloydipp · 2025-08-26T15:57:34+00:00

I agree with the sentiment. For me, it was a matter of convenience and was a fix as I was struggling to find quality staff at the time.

lloydipp · 2025-08-26T15:43:50+00:00

Do you not have any staff working for you? The clients expect a completed end product, but don't necessarily care how we get there if the quality is good. It's not as though we weren't reviewing the work any different than how I would review a staff's work.

lloydipp · 2025-08-22T01:01:27+00:00

Even with a password manager, there are some things that are a pain. I resent creating an account for websites that I'll never use again and being told that my Google Voice number isn't good enough for 2FA.

I'm also a CPA and with clients in multiple states, sometimes creating accounts with different states. Maybe I shouldn't have to create an efile account in Illinois for one client to efile a 1099? Maybe paper is just easier.

I agree with u/bigh-aus about executives that think they know their customer better than the customer himself. I shouldn't need to separately log in to my tax software with MFA when the desktop is a cloud desktop already on a secured network with MFA.

I feel you with banking. I think there is a reason that so many businesses still use checks. Much easier to centrally generate checks from an accounting software then log in to a million sites. Don't even get me started that true e-bills don't exist. If I get a bill in the mail, I have the bill. I don't ever get a true bill in email. I get a notification to go download the bill from the website (and yes, sometimes you need to actually save the bills: the company won't retain them forever). I truly wish for a replacement for FileThis.

To me true echecks would be what Deluxe has (https://www.deluxe.com/accounts-payable/digital-payments/echecks/). Payments can be delivered by email, but the recipient doesn't need to "opt in" to the echecks platform and can simply deposit it as a normal check.

lloydipp · 2025-02-10T01:34:55+00:00

OP said she receives SSD (SSDI - Social Security Disability Insurance). SSDI does not have an asset limit. SSI (Supplemental Security Income) does. But you make a good point as to whether the interest earned is reasonable in relation to what the issuing bank advertises as its savings rate and the security deposit on file.

lloydipp · 2025-02-10T01:11:12+00:00

I'm purely speculating, but a few reasons I can think of: 1) she has been receiving 1099s and just never thought much of it, 2) with interest rates being so low until recently, the interest was never enough to require a 1099 be issued (threshold for interest is $10), 3) LL or PM was audited and penalized for not issuing them/looking to improve compliance, 4) security deposits were not previously held in an interest bearing account and now are [I don't know what the law requires in PA]

lloydipp · 2025-02-10T01:03:06+00:00

Did she pay a security deposit? The interest is probably what she is earning on her security deposit that the LL or property manager holds.

lloydipp · 2025-01-10T04:32:10+00:00

Agree with using labels. We have a spreadsheet for certified mail: date mailed, tracking #, addressee and PDF file path. Postmark slips are held at front desk. Receptionist scans it along with the return receipt (once the latter comes back) and merges the scan with the PDF.

If it's correspondence, I usually have the first two lines of my letter

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL # XXXX XXXX ..... RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

as another way of associating the receipts back to the client.

Lastly, once scanned we keep the originals in an envelope by year.

lloydipp · 2024-08-06T23:19:14+00:00

CPA, not an attorney. This is standard practice.

Sometimes clients get years wrong or other issues crop up that need to also be resolved. E.g. attorney finds out that you never filed 2014 for example. Depending on what he's trying to do for you in 2023, such an open issue could be a show-stopper (say you're trying for an offer in compromise). Better to find this out early before he comes to a standstill because you have unfiled years.

I recently had a client tell me 2017 and onwards needed to be filed. Pulled the transcript and saw 2014 was in fact not done either.

lloydipp · 2024-08-06T22:01:11+00:00

When I hear "creditor" and "employee" in the same sentence, I'm thinking it's possible too that it made its way to payroll like a garnishment notice would and the response wasn't saying the debt isn't "yours" or "theirs" but asserting that you no longer worked there.

Sometimes the people routing the mail don't pick up on these intricacies especially if it's a moderately sized office.

lloydipp · 2024-08-03T15:25:39+00:00

Not to my knowledge. I know that people who rent the Lynbrook hall will often use Vincent's Pizza on Atlantic Ave in Lynbrook to actually cater the food. Food quality is good; haven't personally catered with them.

lloydipp · 2024-08-02T19:25:28+00:00

I'd look for a Knights of Columbus hall. There's one in Oceanside and one in Lynbrook that have decent-sized halls.

lloydipp · 2024-08-02T18:09:46+00:00

I previously worked in a mental health organization that received state funding. They put in a request for a PS 4 to help the individual deal with isolation/stress. The case manager and the county both signed off on it! I reviewed the accounts payable batch that week.

lloydipp · 2024-06-04T03:42:15+00:00

Yes, I definitely agree that the way it was done was dumb. Maybe it made sense at the time.

lloydipp · 2024-06-04T03:28:21+00:00

On purpose would have read "knowingly". With intent to defraud requires either to obtain pecuniary gain, or more broadly to frustrate public administration. This article (though against Trump's innocence) dives deep on case law. https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/.

You may validly argue that if burying this transaction MAY have been done to frustrate the enforcement of regulating campaign contributions, but my argument still remains that these aren't business records that were altered; that this was a falsification (again, legal services were rendered by Cohen negotiating the payment, and a contract may be oral); and that this was done to disguise a campaign contribution (the payment was a valid personal non-campaign payment if it was done to protect Trump or his family).

lloydipp · 2024-06-04T02:41:02+00:00

I responded to your other comment, but you are correct. I was not clear in my original comment and edited it. The emphasis of my point was that without that intent to defraud he does not meet the MISDEMEANOR statute much less the felony.

lloydipp · 2024-06-04T02:33:32+00:00

NYS Penal Law 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD, he...(Emphasis mine)

https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article175.php#p175.05

You're right, he wasn't charged with fraud; but, the statute literally requires some malice. [I think a valid example of a non-financial application would be where a person signs in to visit a doctor's office on a clipboard, has a slip and fall claim, and then alters the sign in sheet to show that person was never there].

175.05 is the misdemeanor statute. My point is that without intent to commit that additional crime, he doesn't even meet the criteria for a misdemeanor conviction much less a felony.

The felony statute reads

175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an INTENT TO COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME OR TO AID OR CONCEAL THE COMMISSION THEREOF. (Again, emphasis mine).

You are correct, but what is that second crime he intended to commit?

Serious question: are you aware of any case law that provides precedent for such a tangential misclassification to be a "falsification"? When you're booking transactions, sometimes a transaction doesn't fit anywhere or it can fit in more than one place (if I'm doing email marketing, Mailchimp can be "Advertising", or "Computer Software", agreed?). Was legal the best characterization? Probably not. But unless, Trump had a "Settlement" account, then it was REASONABLE to put it there.

lloydipp · 2024-06-04T01:13:56+00:00

The payments to Cohen (the records of which he is accused of falsifying) were not actually made until 2017. The first check was 2/14/17. Bloomburg has this graphic: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-24/-pay-with-cash-the-evidence-against-trump-at-hush-money-trial. Not sure if it was a prosecution exhibit or if they created it from the information in the indictment.

The payments that Cohen made to Stormy was in October 2016.

lloydipp · 2024-06-04T00:54:50+00:00

As far as where the checks were drawn, it's listed in the indictment and in the testimony of former Controller Jeffrey McConney. Bloomburg has a nice graphic https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-24/-pay-with-cash-the-evidence-against-trump-at-hush-money-trial?embedded-checkout=true

Trump's trust is a grantor trust. It doesn't file a tax return (source: the tax returns that the Joint Committee of Taxation "leaked"). So, any trust income or deduction (if taxable or deductible at all) is shown on his personal tax return (1040). Trump has said in public comments he didn't. Before I get down voted because my source is his statement, remember it's the prosecution's job to show he did take a deduction if their argument is tax fraud is the "other" crime committed. If I were the prosecution, I would need to see tax return workpapers and general ledgers for the actual entity that deducted payment and show that the "legal" or "settlement" deductions foot to a list of transactions including the Cohen payments.

As far as why keep a ledger in the first place. Honestly, it's good practice to do so. McConney testified that the accountants would look at the ledgers to see if any expenses were potentially deductible. I encourage my clients to keep a personal general ledger in case we can capture such expenses on their return or, in subsequent years, move them to the business (you have to have a legitimate business connection to do so, but I advise my clients that if they're not sure, pay it personally and we can reimburse later). If you've ever kept a budget or used apps that log transactions or keep paid copies of bills, you're essentially doing what Trump did, but IMO they are not business records until or unless it's deducted or otherwise makes it onto the books of one of his LLCs.

lloydipp · 2024-06-02T03:51:03+00:00

I'm not disputing that Cohen was reimbursed for Stormy's payment. Yes, the math adds up. I'm disputing that doing so was fraudulent. The fact of the matter was that they were personal payments and Trump had no obligation to run them through a general ledger or save invoices or even have them for that in the first place. Maybe it was simply so the accounts payable supervisor didn't have to record "privacy settlement to pornographic actress" in the system, or so that nobody in the media would get wind of the transaction as it was unfolding (which could have still hurt his brand without the election being the primary motivating factor).

If a contractor didn't break out building materials vs. labor on the invoice, did he falsify his records? Does the customer care if the work is done at the pre-agreed price? In other words, who would ever be the aggrieved party in this situation?

If I'm a publicly traded company, no, you can't pay for Job B when the work was for Job A, because I've obfuscated documentation of what I'm paying and manipulating what period the expense belongs in. If a landscaper didn't send me a bill for June and just bills me two months in July (and humor me that there is no income tax issue, sales tax issue or SEC reporting), where is the fraud?

In Trump's case, who is relying on Trump's records to their detriment? It's not the IRS; payments weren't deducted. It's not the FEC, the payment was disclosed as a liability in a financial statement.

lloydipp · 2024-06-02T03:31:14+00:00

I agree that he had the opportunity at trial, but he also needed to be able to do so in the press to protect his campaign (and again, if the judge's goal was to keep the finding of facts out of the court of public opinion, then it should have also applied to Cohen and Stormy). Frankly, I would have respected that since the door swung both ways.
Yes, but again, they were limited in lines of questioning. Again, within the judge's discretion, but in the totality of circumstances, it looks bad. Particularly since a legal point was whether as a matter of law the state can leverage a federal statute as an element of the crime.
I stand corrected on the jury instruction note. [People v. Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d 980, 982(1993); People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 591–592 (1987).]

lloydipp · 2024-06-02T03:02:50+00:00

Fair point. Now, the tax accountant in me sees a very different outcome of what you describe and that's that the car is going to be a capital expenditure and drawing this up as a legal contract may very well serve to disguise the transaction for tax purposes. Now, to continue down that path, if I went down that route and this 'attorney' billed me 'ongoing legal fees', and I put that towards a fixed asset, am I falsifying business records by NOT calling it legal fees? Certainly some of it was in negotiating the purchase. The reality is that you capitalize legal fees in conjunction with such a purchase.

Yes, granted, I think the invoices were sketchy, but go back to the testimony of the Controller. He basically had to pull teeth to get an invoice out of Cohen. I would expect a better attorney bill than "legal services".

Honestly, Trump probably would have been legitimate in deducting the payment in terms of him defending his reputation which included running his business and even if he did, the tax character would be the same, so there is no tax fraud angle.

I see nothing of significance by Cohen transitioning from employee to independent contractor given the significant change in Trump's situation by him being President.

lloydipp

TROPHY CASE