TaxCycle | Products | Pricing | Training | Documentation | Support | News

MR-69 error codes

contacted Revenu Quebec about these 2 error codes. They concluded it was software issue.

Marcel this will be fixed in an update later today or tomorrow.

Marc Labrecque

Hi,

Please check build 38167 (just released) - we believe the issue should be resolved in that build.

~ Rob

Nope…

MR-69 error 140515 is apparently saying the form version in the scanned copy attached to the transmission is not 2019-11. Revenu Québec recently added this validation.
It has been reported to us by a couple others and, only minutes ago, we sent 2 samples of the scanned copies to our contacts at Revenu Québec so they can take them to their IT dept. in hopes they can tell us why they are not seeing the form version as being correct.
I will post an update here when I get something.

Glad you have efficient contacts at Revenu Quebec …

Any news about this issue?

No real news other than that before this Covid crisis hit, I was told that Revenu Québec was considering turning off the validation. They asked that if we had more examples of this error to send them through to them.
If you are still encountering this error, please send us a file or two if you use e-courier, or call us and we will send you a link to send them to us securely.

I am wondering if people remember to set the form version when you save the scanned copy of the MR-69. There is no diagnosis message that you are required to set that before transmitting.

Scanned & TaxCycle’s upload versions were both set as French versions. From what Allen tells me, it seems the issue is caused by Revenu Québec’s system failure to properly identify the bar code at the bottom of the MR-69 scanned document and they suggest scanning at higher resolution; this affects many of us.
They don’t seem to understand that I have to send the electronic copy to my client for signature; he/she has to print, sign, scan and send back to me where it’s saved on system, then attached to TaxCycle for electronic transmission.
Every time a document is saved, sent, scanned, printed, re-sent, there will be a certain resolution loss, albeit minimal.
Revenu Québec acknowledges the issue and from Allen’s email, they will work on the solution … sometime in the future.

Has anybody on this forum transmitted a TP1 MR-69 from TaxCycle this year successfully ?

@Elizabeth
re; latest update for MR-69

My scanner & I both give up !!!

Before the current shutdown, Revenu Québec had suggested they were considering disabling that form version error message. Though they are still working, sending us the occasional email about the evolving Covid situation, they had said that only top priority system changes would be done during this period, so I can guess this change was not one of them.
I had previously given them a few examples of MR69 forms that were being rejected with this message. Have you already sent me a couple examples of ones that are being rejected like this?
If not, the last instructions I had from them was to send them more examples if anyone is willing to provide them. I would be happy to send them along in hopes they get finally realize their system is woefully inadequate.

Will send you the ones I have and tried sending many times over with the results you can see on my discussion pic.

(e-courier)

@Allen
Although Revenu Quebec insists, as per phone conversation, that both RepPro & RepPro+ should be able to transmit MR-69 via certified software, I have a strong suspicion their system disallows RepPro transmission in favor of RepPro+ only.
Might be worth asking.

I will ask with the upload of your files to their portal where I have to put all my questions.
Update: Your files have been submitted to the team we deal with at Revenu Québec.

News from Revenu Québec regarding the files I sent through to them:
Their tool is apparently having issues reading these forms, which we all knew. They are currently working on an improvement to the tool that should reduce the number of rejects with this error.

In the meantime, they can only suggest increasing the resolution when scanning the signed copy in hopes that helps their system read the form.
One of the forms I sent them had the little barcode at the bottom of page 2 cut-off which was the main reason for it being rejected. Apparently, it is very important that each of the 3 pages be fully visible in the scan.
Regarding the question of if being only a Pro and not Pro+ made a difference, they wrote that it made no difference.

Thanks for the heads-up Allen.

Thought I’d try one more time to Efile MR-69 before documents expire… same old story but different song.!
Hope Canada Post is still willing and able!

I had a meeting with Revenu Québec this week at which the issues we encountered with the MR-69 transmission was discussed at length.
We do know that many are being successfully transmitted. However, several users like yourself have reported that they never succeed and have to mail the signed form to Revenu Québec.
I suggested to them that it could be the scanner used which does not render the image obtained clear enough for their machines to read. I know we encounter the same with DoxCycle. The PDF looks fine to our eyes but cannot be read by DoxCycle to recognize what the document might be let alone extracting any amounts.

They did ask, once again, that if anyone does have examples of rejected transmissions, they would be very happy to look at them to see if they can detect a more precise reason for the reject. I would be happy to forward any such examples to them.