CaptCook wrote: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?
Taxalmancer wrote: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.
Texas Al wrote:CaptCook wrote: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.
Return to Business Operations and Development
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests