PA Diagnostic 19621 is obsolete

[Cathie H]

On the federal return, if you report a group of stock sales as a summary entry on Schedule D, you can enter a negative date and Lacerte produces “Various” as the date bought or sold or both. 

If you have a nonresident (or resident?) Pennsylvania income in the return, Lacerte gives you a critical diagnostic saying “Date disposed cannot be “Various for PA e-filing purposes”.

The PA instructions for their Schedule D of Form 40, shows they allow “Various” in the date field.  See attached PA 40 D Instructions.  Page 2, Line 1 column b and c.    I also typed in “Various” on their form.    I believe the diagnostic is out of date,  like from the dark ages. 

This client has a large number of Sch D transactions, so I am going to have client file a paper  return.  I am going to include a cover letter addressed to PA Dept of Revenue indicating they should penalize  Lacerte for not accomodating "Various" on the PA e-filed return.  PA probably does not realize how many returns are being blocked from e-filing in this manner.   

PA Sch D - 40 Instructions, Page 2

Please fix this as soon as possible.  

[IntuitAlicia]

The diagnostic is specific to e-file. Often e-file rules will differ from paper filings due to e-file schematic requirements. I am checking on the diagnostic itself to determine whether or not this is due to e-file requirements or an outdated diagnostic.

[IntuitAlicia · Accepted solution]

@Cathie H The diagnostic is produced for e-file transmission only. If you are paper filing the return, the use of various is acceptable. For e-file purposes, the Date Sold only allows numeric entries.

Currently the form instructions do not match the e-file schema rules, which is why the diagnostic is present. However, if these schema rules are updated to allow alphanumeric entries in the future, this diagnostic will be removed.

[Cathie H]

I see your reply, but I would like to hear from you that you are proactively contacting the state to let them know that their e-file schema appears to be out of data.  Communicate to them that the taxpayers and Lacerte customers expect the e-file schema to be consistent with the form instructions.  I expect that they are unaware they have this conflict.  It is obscure and they just need to update their specs.  Also, when we enter the data for various, there IS a date entered.  It is just preceeded by a negative number.  They could ignore the minus sign.  

[sjrcpa]

@Cathie H 

"I would like to hear from you that you are proactively contacting the state to let them know that their e-file schema appears to be out of data."

You are allowed to dream.

How about if you contact PA?

[Cathie H]

I used to develop tax software and we had direct contact with the state personnel who managed the e-file specs.  I am sure Intuit has contacts.  They just need to raise the issue.  

[Cathie H]

Also, when I gave the client the paper copy of the PA return, I included a copy of the diagnostic that told me we could not e-file and I wrote on it, "why don't you update your specs" along with a copy of the page from the instructions.  Maybe someone will read it.  

[sjrcpa]

I'm sure Intuit does have contacts. I am equally sure they are not that proactive.

They have trouble implementing current law as it is. And, rarely do folks from Intuit stop by here, and when they do they are not the programmers.

[Cathie H]

Got it!

[IntuitAlicia]

@Cathie H Because this diagnostic came to question and verification was needed it was discovered that the schema does allow various as the sale date except when entering the date for a primary residence.

Lacerte currently disallows this in all situations. Due to this clarification, Lacerte 2022 will be updated to allow Various as the date in additional scenarios, and the diagnostic will remain for this specific situation only. 

A release date has not been determined at this time. However, if you would like to use various as the sale date when this is not a primary residence, you will need to disable e-file error diagnostics to transmit the return with this entry.

Thank you for questioning the diagnostic validity as it brought detail changes to light that had not been previously identified.

[sjrcpa]

Wow!

@Cathie H I've never seen this happen.