Tax Software

Looking to change Software providers. Obviously looking for software that can handle all types of tax returns, but one that has competent responsive customer service,if that exists. Would like feedback on how smoothly transition went (i.e. Carry forward of client data), interface with paperless data storage product, ease of electronic receipt and sending of data and tax returns securely, as well as functionality. Thanks.

There is no such thing as a completely smooth transition.

What software do you currently use?

Donut is correct. You need to review carryovers, depreciation, and some other areas. Also pay particular attention to how state info gets converted.

I converted my remaining ProSeries individual and business returns (including my own) to UltraTax a few years back, it went pretty well. UT provides lots of support and documentation for the conversion process, including as I recall reports on what didn't convert. I'd say it worked pretty well, but yes you still have to check carryovers and state info carefully.

You also have to decide if you are going to convert prior year to same year, then pro forma to current year as normal, or convert prior year directly to current year. The former takes more time but I'd say produces better results.

I use UltraTax and its related products (on a PPR fee basis) and nothing I have read or seen, here or elsewhere, has ever made me regret the choice -- I definitely prefer it to ProSeries, Drake, and also TaxWorks (which I used to use before H&R bought it and took it in house). I only need to contact customer support a handful of times per year and almost always get satisfactory resolution.

We have had extensive discussion on this topic before. First what is your budget? Are you looking for top tier product some something mid range?

Try the "working demo" of all the software that you are interested (most companies will let you have the 2018 software after tax filing deadline with some print or e-file disabled) and use your actual returns to see how it processes. Make a good sample of your returns for testing purpose. See the carryover reports to see if that is at least workable. I can tell you from experience you will NEVER find any tax software that will do all the things exactly as you wish. You have to make your priorities of the features you must have!

Could not agree more with ATSMAN. There is no substitute for test driving the software and seeing how the interface works and what the output looks like.

Thanks Makbo for the info on Ultra Tax...will definitely check them out. Good to hear from someone who has used or is familiar with a number of products.

We switched from Prosystem Fx to Ultratax beginning with the 2016 returns and are happy with the change. UT is considerably less expensive and overall equal to Profx. Much better in many ways (ease of use, partnership allocations, Texas franchise, ) and not quite as good in some other areas. The conversion process was not difficult. I believe the only problem we had was corporate NOL carryovers were incorrect in that the 2015 amount was doubled up. Easy to fix once we identified the problem. We carefully checked all carryovers and UT really did a good job with the conversion. UT has a killer integrated fixed assets program (we had already been using that - Profx tax depreciation is very limited).

Tech support for UT is not as good. Longer hold times is the biggest problem. Also need to call it more than I did Prosystem Fx, but then we used it for 23 years.

Al, I'm curious.
What are some of the ways that Pfx was better than UT?
My current firm uses Pfx; my prior firm used UT. I'm trying to get them to, at least, evaluate the effectiveness of the tool.

How many users do you have in your firm?

I've used ProSystem FX for a very long time. Two years ago I demo'd UT. It seemed very well-thought-out and user friendly.

I almost pulled the trigger but in the end, I decided that the ~40% I'd save for the first three years (couldn't get a commitment from them about what would happen after that) wasn't enough for me to switch.

When I tax-effected the difference in cost, I decided it was not worth the headaches, heart aches, and stomach aches I knew would be coming by switching to a new software. One problem with one client's return where I didn't put an "x" in some obscure box could erase the savings in one fell swoop.

Also, I use FX in Interview mode which is lightning fast and preparing a return in form mode with UT was going to be slower for me. That's why I haven't used FX in form mode. That played a small part in my decision.

If I am going to switch, I want a material cost benefit and I only saw a marginal one going from FX to UT. This was the worst tax season of my career and I can't imagine what it would have been like had I made to move to a new software this past tax season.

Al, I'm curious.
What are some of the ways that Pfx was better than UT?
My current firm uses Pfx; my prior firm used UT. I'm trying to get them to, at least, evaluate the effectiveness of the tool.

How many users do you have in your firm?

We have 9 preparers. I guess the most irritating thing about UT vs Profx is when a partnership K-1 shows tentative depletion on oil & gas and you enter it in the K-1 input screen UT does NOT apply the 65% of taxable income limit. The UT oil & gas module handles royalties for schedule and working interests for schedule C just fine, including the 65% limitation. But depletion flowinf from a pass-through entity not good. You CAN connect the oil & gas module to the K-1 and the resulting depletion gets properly limited, but it require entering a dummy amount of royalties so that it will compute the targeted amount.

I also like Profx better in that it answered business returns questions to the most likely default. UT leaves most questions unanswered and then warns you about it in the diagnostics.

Profx tech support was more prompt, allows for not computing a return (UT computes real time and you can't stop it from doing so).

For 709 gift tax returns Profx would divide community gifts to the spouses automatically. I'm not referring to the election to split gifts which UT handles fine, I am talking about dividing a gift of community property. You have to enter each half in UT, which is twice the amount of data entry. If we did a lot of gift tax returns this would be a real bummer for UT.

Probably 8 of the 9 prefer UT. I do.

I've used ProSystem FX for a very long time. Two years ago I demo'd UT. It seemed very well-thought-out and user friendly.

I almost pulled the trigger but in the end, I decided that the ~40% I'd save for the first three years (couldn't get a commitment from them about what would happen after that) wasn't enough for me to switch.

When I tax-effected the difference in cost, I decided it was not worth the headaches, heart aches, and stomach aches I knew would be coming by switching to a new software. One problem with one client's return where I didn't put an "x" in some obscure box could erase the savings in one fell swoop.

Also, I use FX in Interview mode which is lightning fast and preparing a return in form mode with UT was going to be slower for me. That's why I haven't used FX in form mode. That played a small part in my decision.

If I am going to switch, I want a material cost benefit and I only saw a marginal one going from FX to UT. This was the worst tax season of my caer and I can't imagine what it would have been like had I made to move to a new software this past tax season.

I used the interview screens in Profx also and after using it 23 years it was quick. But I like UT screens better - they are not any kind of form, just a different format of interview screen. Entry of multiple units is more intuitive to me. With Profx it can be a pain dealing with activity numbers. At the time we switched when you figure in Pay per returns, etc, we paid almost $30K per season for Profx and the last 3 years we have paid about $13k a season for UT. Happy about that and no regrets.

We put off switching for the very reasons you mentioned. We moved our offices in March - in the middle of our first tax season with UT. It really was not as difficult as I expected. Mileage may vary however.

Al, I'm curious.
What are some of the ways that Pfx was better than UT?
My current firm uses Pfx; my prior firm used UT. I'm trying to get them to, at least, evaluate the effectiveness of the tool.

How many users do you have in your firm?

We have 9 preparers. I guess the most irritating thing about UT vs Profx is when a partnership K-1 shows tentative depletion on oil & gas and you enter it in the K-1 input screen UT does NOT apply the 65% of taxable income limit. The UT oil & gas module handles royalties for schedule and working interests for schedule C just fine, including the 65% limitation. But depletion flowinf from a pass-through entity not good. You CAN connect the oil & gas module to the K-1 and the resulting depletion gets properly limited, but it require entering a dummy amount of royalties so that it will compute the targeted amount.

I also like Profx better in that it answered business returns questions to the most likely default. UT leaves most questions unanswered and then warns you about it in the diagnostics.

Profx tech support was more prompt, allows for not computing a return (UT computes real time and you can't stop it from doing so).

For 709 gift tax returns Profx would divide community gifts to the spouses automatically. I'm not referring to the election to split gifts which UT handles fine, I am talking about dividing a gift of community property. You have to enter each half in UT, which is twice the amount of data entry. If we did a lot of gift tax returns this would be a real bummer for UT.

Probably 8 of the 9 prefer UT. I do.

Does the UT oil and gas module allow for importing P&L and production detail by well from Excel? I use ProSystem fx, and that is a useful feature for me. I demo'd UT a couple of years ago and did not see that it had that feature.

My firm is contemplating the switch from Lacerte to UT since Lacerte is never ready to file State returns until the third week of February which puts us way behind. It’s very annoying, especially considering turbo tax is up and running in January. So I’m curious to hear how UT really did with the new changes in the law. A guy I know at another firm complained a lot about how poorly UT was handling the QBI worksheets and the amount of overrides required. Lacerte did a pretty good job with all the changes imo, better than UT based on my conversation with the guy up the street anyway.

I’m also curious about the cost of UT compared to Lacerte. Texas Al said he pays around $13k for nine users. Lacerte is costing us more than $20k for around 12 users.