TP1 client letter

Client letter for TP1 return requires that client sign MR-69 for transmission eventhough
workflow displays valid MR-69 already on file.

I believe the “carry forward” results from a previous year’s return are based on that previous year’s workflow carried over to the newer year.

For example workflow from 2018 shows AuthRep signed and on file which is carried over and displayed on 2019 workflow.

For this client’s 2018 TP1 return, there is no (possibility of) indication in the 2018 workflow, that the MR-69 was printed and attached to e-courier message, although it’s history file shows MR-69 printed and attached to e-courier message; it was received, signed and mailed directly to Revenu Québec by the client.

The MR-69 info on 2019 Engagement Information sheet, was filled in manually to show Power of attorney already filed with Revenu Québec and reflected on the associated workflow as displayed in the above picture.

The 2019 "Client Letter" somehow doesn’t adjust from this info and requests that another MR-69 be signed and sent.

Obviously there is a disconnect between the input from the Engagement Info sheet and the Client Letter.

Not a major issue but can be confusing for client.

I’ll take a look and see what we can do. There wasn’t enough time to get it into the release that went out today, but we can see about the next one.

As a temporary solution for now, I can always delete the MR-69 signature required line from the client letter.
Also, this situation assumes the return will mailed to Quebec; just wondering if same issue will (would) be present once it has been Netfiled and the final client letter displayed.
I’m certainly not going to lose any sleep over it … and neither should you :slightly_smiling_face:

This is an easy fix… The condition only appears for returns that are filed on paper. It needs to be changed from

{{# MR69.Consent.Consent != "None"}}


{{# (MR69.Consent.Consent = "Authorization") or (MR69.Consent.Consent = "PowerOfAttorney")}}

I’ve made the change in our code, we just need to test it before we can put it in a release.

Thanks for the heads’ up @taxwave