Sage 100

 View Only
  • 1.  1099 Changes this year Attached is an article fro

    Posted 01-04-2017 08:27
      |   view attached
    1099 Changes this year Attached is an article from Carmen at Sage regarding 1099 changes that we had an issue with one of our clients. I thought I would post it here in case anyone else has issues. This deals with State Account numbers ""required"" on the 1099 forms.

    Attachment(s)

    docx
    1099_Changes_for_2016.docx   590 KB 1 version


  • 2.  RE: 1099 Changes this year Attached is an article fro

    Posted 01-04-2017 08:31
    https://90minds-com.socialcast.com/messages/32990514?ref=stream


  • 3.  RE: 1099 Changes this year Attached is an article fro

    Posted 01-04-2017 08:43
    Thank you!


  • 4.  RE: 1099 Changes this year Attached is an article fro

    Posted 01-04-2017 08:52
      |   view attached
    PDF copy

    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    1099_Changes_for_2016.pdf   899 KB 1 version


  • 5.  RE: 1099 Changes this year Attached is an article fro

    Posted 01-04-2017 08:53
    Do you have the file that Carmen references. I think the link in the document is to an internal share for Sage.


  • 6.  RE: 1099 Changes this year Attached is an article fro

    Posted 01-04-2017 09:46
    I just reviewed this with one of my customers. First, I had her add the withholding taxes that Aatrix is asking for. Then, we tested. In Aatrix, the Filing State column (it's next to the column Box 18 CT Wages) is being populated with the vendor's state (those states are the ones Aatrix is asking to fill out tax IDs. We found this because the wrong format printed in box 17 in our test.). THAT is the column that is being printed to box 17 on 1099 and that box should be the PAYER'S state in the Payer's state layout, not the vendor's state. So, my customer changed that column to PA (her state) and everything seemed to print fine on the 1099's. She had to get off the phone before all the testing, but I'm wondering if the ""fix"" is just to change the Filing State column to the Payer's state. Did anyone else see this?