Form 8879-no ERO Signature

Can you explain in more detail? Not having to sign with a facsimile or printed name would be great, but I just do not see it. Seems to me Part III requires a signature to certify the PIN, it can't be signed with only a PIN. I find this to be a problem in Proseries, same as the OP.

Assuming use of the Practitioner PIN method, Part III requires the signature of the ERO, where he/she is certifying the ERO EFIN/PIN used to electronically sign the return. I don't think the EFIN/PIN by itself is a valid signature of the ERO on Form 8879 if that is what you are saying? The EFIN/PIN is the electronic signature for filing, but the 8879 has to be manually signed, or signed using one of the alternative procedures in Notice 2007-79, to certify the EFIN/PIN used in the efiled transmission. 

Publication 1345 says the ERO "must also" sign with a PIN, just like the client, but this is referring to the signature of the electronic return originator attesting to the ERO Declaration, and if applicable signing as return preparer. This is not the same as the certification of the EFIN/PIN itself, which is accomplished by signing the 8879.

In other words, the ERO must sign the return electronically with a PIN. But the 8879 still has to be manually signed, or signed using one of the alternative methods (either a facsimile of ERO signature or printed name) to certify that the PIN used to sign the return is valid.

I cannot seem to get the ERO signature to print in Part III, which I see as a serious issue. 

Thanks for your reply Gabi.

I've taken that step years ago, but that change only prints the preparer's name in the signature block at the bottom of Form 1040.  It does not write the name on the ERO Signature Line on Form 8879.

And even if it did, that is not a legal signature.

Sorry, but unless I'm missing something, this is not a solution, nor is it a workaround.

Thanks,

Tim

rcooley25  I think you're missing the point.  We are using e-signature as provided (and sold at a high price) by Intuit.  Yes it's true we could print the form and manually sign it.  But we are using e-signature for a reason.  What you're suggesting has already been discussed and lamented in this thread.  We don't want to send out the 8879 for our clients to e-sign, only to have to print it out after they sign, manually sign and date it ourselves, and then scan it back into our digital files.  What a waste of time and paper.  We want the functionality to either (a) just have the ERO name automatically printed on the 8879 (which is allowed by the IRS), or (b) have the e-signature process routed to the ERO as well so the ERO can be part of the e-sign process.  

So, what you're suggesting as the solution, is not a solution at all, and is in fact the whole problem.

I'm sorry to say, but I think that's simply incorrect.  And I think all three Intuit representatives are wrong too.

First off -- Intuit is inconsistent, because in their higher-tier software, Lacerte, they allow the printed preparer or ERO name on the 8879, even though the ERO PIN is already present.  So if what those reps said is true, then why do they allow it in Lacerte?

Second -- it is the signature for the e-file transmission itself, not the 8879.  Think about it.  Taxpayers have to sign the 8879, even through the taxpayer PINs are right there on the 8879.  Do their pins act as their signature?  No.  Basically they are saying "this PIN will be used in the software as my signature for transmission purposes, and I'm signing off on that fact."  EROs have to basically do the same thing.

The Intuit reps are wrong. As has been pointed out in this thread, it does not meet the IRS qualifications.  They simply don't address the issue.

And just for argument's sake -- Even if they were right, they allow the option in Lacerte, so why can't they just allow the same option in ProSeries.

The way Intuit has handled this matter has been embarrassing.

Agreed - correcting this basic item is completely a non-existent priority for them considering the age of this thread + the number of responses.

I tried PS e-Signature but didn't like the functionality, the way it confused clients and the "use it or lose it" buy feature since envelopes expire at the end of every year.

I used DocuSign integrated with SmartVault for a few years but found it expensive (even without having to pay monthly licensing fees since apparently that is a benefit of SV) and regularly had clients of all ages struggle with the challenge questions, particularly the college kids who didn't have a credit history.  Then they would have to wet sign anyway and reload to the portal - which was painful and would delay the process.

This season I switched to Encyro and though it is not integrated directly with PS or SV, it has made a WORLD of difference. MUCH less expensive--particularly on the KBAs--no "use it or lose it", verification by text, and clients are not struggling with it. I digitally sign it as well.  It's a small learning curve, but very very worth it for the cost savings and removing friction in the signature process with clients.