What standards should I expect of my CPA when an error was made?
"What is the right way to handle this? Did you check the forms? Did the form state $0 tax due on the FTB LLC/Corp form (I'm guessing you operate as LLC/Corp, since you're dealing with the Franchise Tax)? The responsibility is ultimately yours. You should cross check all the numbers and verify that they're correct. That said, if the CPA filled the forms incorrectly based on your correct data - then she made a mistake and can be held liable. CPA filing forms from a jurisdiction on the other end of the country without proper research and knowledge may be held negligent if she made a grave mistake. You can file a law suit against the CPA (which will probably trigger her E&O insurance carrier who'll try to settle if there's a good chance for your lawsuit to not be thrown away outright), or complain to the State regulatory agency overseeing CPAs in the State of her license. Or both. Am I wrong for expecting the CPA should have properly filled out and filed my taxes? No, but it doesn't shift the responsibility from you. How can I find out if the CPA has missed anything else? Same as with doctors and lawyers - get a second opinion. Preferably from a CPA licensed in California. You and only you are responsible for your taxes. You may try to pin the penalties and interest on the CPA if she really made a mistake. California is notorious for very high LLC/Corp franchise tax (cost of registering to do business in the State). It's $800 a year. You should have read the forms and the instructions carefully, it is very prominent. It is also very well discussed all over the Internet, any search engine would pop it up for you with a simple ""California Franchise Tax for LLC/Corp"" search. CA FTB is also very aggressive in assessing and collecting the fee, and the rules of establishing nexus in CA are very broad. From your description it sounds like you were liable for the Franchise tax in CA, since you had a storage facility in CA. You may also be liable for sales taxes for that period."
"There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say ""interest"", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A ""bad year"" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases ""interest"" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that ""Roth IRA fund"" doesn't really tell you what's ""inside"" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a ""target retirement date""-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total ""interest"" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about ""standard growth"" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much ""growth"" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (""How much do you expect growth to be per year?"") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not ""rules"" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected." "The question ""do they?"" is a fair one, but the answer, ""we can only observe the past, and that's what they did,"" may not be so satisfying to you.  It's safe to say that any longer term view of any market will show far less volatility than a short one. It only takes a glance at the return of the 2000's  2009 27.11   2008 -37.22  2007      5.46  2006  15.74 2005  4.79   2004 10.82   2003  28.72  2002    -22.27  2001 -11.98 2000     -9.11 (for the S&P) to see that in an awful decade containing -37% and -22% that the full decade was ""only"" down 9% in total or just less than 1% per year compounded. I'm not predicting any particular returns forward, just noting this is how the math works.  DCA performs well through such a decade, better than in a rising one. You are offered the opportunity to buy into a market selling below the long term trend.  Added note in response to Enno's answer below - On rereading the linked article, I see where the author cites Zvi Bodie who clearly made a logical error. He concludes that since a 20 month S&P put costs triple what a 2.3 mo put costs, that there's more risk the market falls over the longer period, not less. American options can be sold or exercised at any time. If a 2 year option were cheaper than a 2 month option, no one would buy the shorter term. It's pretty simple that the Options Pricing Models take time into account and their value, put or call, increases along with the time till expiration.  On a lighter note, when I take the S&P data for 1871-2012 (I know, no S&P back then, but it's Schiller's data) I get average 40 year returns of 44X, similar to the author's conclusion, $1K growing to $44K. But, the Standard deviation is 28. So the high end of +1 STDEV is $72K, not the author's $166K. Although, the low end 44-28=16 comes close to his $14K figure. $16K is a 7.18% long term return which today doesn't look bad. When the article was written, the author was looking at a 6% short term risk free rate." I'm the odd man out.   My previous boss (at the same company) had a kid at 15. Despite the extra responsibility, she managed to become a CPA and have a relatively successful accounting career.  Yeah it's nuts, what are the odds that all these people had kids early right? Get this, the purchasing manager's daughter had a baby at 19. She managed to hook her daughter up with a job at my place of employment in order to help her earn enough money to care for the baby (father punked out). There definitely seems to be a company culture of this sort of thing.  As far as seizing a promotion. I don't understand why someone who is inferior in every aspect except personal favor is automatically the best candidate for a promotion due to backdoor politics. So what you're saying is that I should focus on my soft skills and less on everything else in order to get ahead? It seems wrong that I'm forced to be stuck where I am because of back door politics and not because of merit and my ability to add value to the company. I guess I don't fit into the company culture because I don't have a sob story about how I'm supporting children I conceived before I was legally able to vote.   Edit: I should probably find another company that appreciates high performers. Daqri is developing a smart helmet and is a name I keep hearing about when this subject comes up at conferences.  Autodesk has been gobbling up tech like the Stingray engine for awhile with a heavy focus on real time modeling and simulation in the future.  Some of the advancements they have made on that is quite impressive especially in the medical sector for stuff like air flow simulation for clean air rooms.  That's not really a surprise though being that it's Autodesk.  A year or two ago Google Tango was also a big buzz.  The demo device I got to play with was pretty cool but the tech was still maturing and I think still ultimately waiting on better(cheaper) sensor tech.  I expect sensor tech to start being standard on devices in the next couple of years.    The big stand out to me is stakeholders (building owners) waking up to the way they can leverage this technology on the operations side and save money.  Two of the last three capital projects I've been involved in asked for and utilized BIM, UAVs, LIDAR, Cobie and so forth.  Compared to the previous biennium it's night and day.  What's really missing are better ways to engage all this information in a Design-Build environment which is where I think AR will really shine. "I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the ""conversion"". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly." "If she reported the income on the business return, I'd treat this as a ""mail audit"". Try to get a clear statement from Square confirming what they reported, under which SSN/EIN, for what transactions. Make a copy of that. If at all possible, get them to send a letter to the IRS (copy to you) acknowledging that they reported it under the wrong number. Copy the IRS's letter. Square's letter, and both personal and business 2012 returns. Write a (signed) cover letter explaining what had happened and pointing out the specific line in the business return which corresponded to the disputed amount, so they can see that you did report it properly and did pay taxes on it as business income. End that letter with a request for advice on how to straighten this out.  Certified-mail the whole package back to the IRS at whatever address the advisory letter gives. At worst, I'm guessing, they'll tell you to refile both returns for 2012 with that income moved over from the business return to the personal return, which will make everything match their records. But with all of this documentation in one place, they may be able to simply accept that Square misreported it and correct their files. Good luck. The IRS really isn't as unreasonable as people claim; if you can clearly document that you were trying to do the right thing, they try not to penalize folks unnecessarily." I believe that! Their system is meant to cause defaults. They are so disorganized and unhelpful. On three separate files for the same client, I dealt with lost documents and forced start over on the processes of approvals because they said documents weren't received in time, even though we had confirmations. I think if Congress could sit through a customer service call or process for some person trying to do a loan modification or get short sale approval, they would instantly call a senate investigation into their practices. I don't know how they can not be aware of the outright fuckery that goes on with their company. Certainly sounds worthwhile to get a CPA to help you with setting up the books properly and learning to maintain them, even if you do it yourself thereafter. What's your own time worth?