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

T183 - Transmitter Identification

Today’s update did not fix the MR69 form, part 2 or 3 for 2015.

I also checked 2016 MR69 and,

  1. The conflict between the 12 series boxes and 12 series boxes are resolved.
  2. The 14 series boxes are not resolved where the preparer/business has a PO Box,
  3. Part 3 diagnostic errors are not appearing.

I checked the telephone numbers and office extensions are not showing up (minor issue.)

Signature lines in the letters remain with Preparer, then Firm Name. (Minor)

@rick.s @TimParris

We are planning to deal with the remaining improvements in the January release, as follows:

  • Firm Name (To be used for correspondence and communications) - this is the existing field
  • Preparer name (To be used for correspondence and communications) - this is the existing field
  • CRA Firm/Preparer Name (all CRA forms, except authorization) - if blank, use Firm Name above, if that’s blank, use the preparer name above.
  • CRA Firm/Preparer Name (for authorization forms. we could add this to the T1013/RC59 etc options page) - if blank, use Firm Name above, if that’s blank, use the preparer name above.
  • RevQue Firm name (To be used on all paperwork for RevQue EXCEPT MR-69 which has special rules) - if blank, use Firm Name above, if that’s blank, use the preparer name above.

As I mentioned earlier, the preparer and firm name on the correspondence can be adjusted by changing the new “Closing” snippet, so we will you handle that there.

Stay tuned!

~ Cameron

@rick.s @TimParris

Just a quick update on this… Here’s how the organization of these fields is looking:

Two new fields in Preparer options:

And two new fields in Authorization options:

These four fields feed into the Engagement form:

TaxCycle will use the highlighted fields to populate the T183, T1013, RC59, T4 page 4, TP1, MR69, etc, etc. If the fields highlighted above are blank, the existing mechanism be used. We’ll have a review message if the engagement form fields do not match the options.

Hopefully, if anyone has comments, please provide them today or first thing tomorrow. I’d like to implement the changes tomorrow, and include them in a beta build of a client manager update we have planned for the end of the week. That beta build will also include the configurable workflow items we discussed here: Changing workflow

Best regards,

~ Cameron

1 Like

Update: We will be adding 2 fields to the T1013, RC59, MR69 options window to complete the MR69 something like this:

These will appear on the Engagement form between the Québec enterprise number and website fields to then be used on the MR69 form.

That looks great if you need it tested I have a few return to do in the next day or two just offering Cameron.
Thank you Kevin Urquhart

Looks great – this implementation will solve the issues we were having.

Thank you so much Cameron – much appreciated!

Based on the feedback so far, here’s take 2.

The options have been reorganized slightly to look like this:

And the engagement form has been reorganized slightly to look like this:

We’ll add this to the 2016 T1 and then move it to other modules once we’ve confirmed that we’ve covered all the possible scenarios…

~ Cameron

So a bit different then version 1 OK. Still looks OK just need to test out could you try and make it for 2015 T1 then i can test it with some that iam doing this week. When you release it in beta

thank you

We’ve tried to solve all the variations presented in this discussion, as well as a few others.

Check out the latest release notes and give it a whirl.

So far we have dealt with the 2015 and 2016 T1 modules. The changes will migrate to the other T1 years and the T2 in future releases.

Best regards,

~ Cameron

Oh Oh… (Some info has been obscured.)

My legal name was correctly filled in the options, but did not transfer to the MR69.

My PO Box was correctly specified.

In my earlier post, I should have specified that MR-69 changes would be coming in a later release, likely our next one. For this season, Revenu Québec requires that each software pass through an approval process for MR-69 that is separate from their TP1 paper approval and which includes a long list of required validations to ensure MR-69s submitted to Revenu Québec will not trigger undue errors in processing. We recently made our submission to obtain that approval.
However, here is a preview of what your scenario will give once our changes are available in a release:

Let us know if we missed anything.

I was informed by Revenu Quebec that they were rejecting my MR69 forms a year ago because I used the diminutive version of my legal name. Their computer obligates that boxes 13a and 13b match EXACTLY the name in their computer.

I am not certain that A = Allen for a computer. :cold_sweat:

I do like the fix for box 14c though. :heart_eyes:

Could it be that you don’t need a name in box 13 with a contact person name in boxes 13a and 13b, but instead should enter your exact name in boxes 12a and 12b?
Just looking to see if we could take what is entered in the “Preparer or Firm name” field in Options and split it between boxes 12a and 12b.

I was told by Revenu Quebec that, No, when you have box 13, you must also specify boxes 13a and 13b which must (computer) match the name that Revenu Quebec has in their individual database. Note that the name in their individual database may be different than the preparer…