State form 568 and not notice from turbo tax of need to file seperately

Forum|Forum|2 years ago
February 15, 2024
1 reply
0 views

if, as i've seen in the threads, Turbo Tax cannot efile CA State 568, why doesn't it produce the form for submission by mail, and why doesn't the product notify me that it won't produce the form or efile?

DawnC

Employee

Form 568 is ready for e-filing in TurboTax. However, there are some situations that are not supported for e-file. In these cases, TurboTax cannot e-file this LLC return due to one or more of the reasons below. It will need to be printed and mailed, and you will need to file a waiver With the California Franchise Tax Board. You may still e-file your California Individual Income Tax return.

Amended return
LLC is apportioning on Schedule R (Line M1)
Nonconsenting members liability (Line 5)
Withholding on 592/593 (Line 11)
Non-disregarded business entity (Line U1)
Gain or loss on Schedule D-1 (Sch B Line 8-9)
Depreciation/amortization on 3885L (Sch B Ln 17a)
Farm profit or loss (Schedule B Line 6/7)
PTE Elective Tax (Line 4)

How do I know if I need to file Form 568?

**Say "Thanks" by clicking the thumb icon in a post**Mark the post that answers your question by clicking on "Mark as Best Answer"

rixhawzAuthor

My issue is that through what ever mechanism within the CA state interrogation single member limited liability get checked on schedule C, so it didn't populate 568, nor did it notify me one way or another that it wouldn't be efiled, or I had to mail it in.

In that I'm still very new to the LLC world, and I relied heavily on TurboTax Home & Business, to ensure I had all my bases covered, this appears to be a glaring hole in your business/system logic. I'm now in the position of having to file late with this form. And though I recorded a loss this first tax year, I'm concerned I'm going to end up with a penalty and potentially flagged for future filings.

As I said in my notes on the survey sent me on this issue, I'm impressed with the support person, her patients and tenacity, in working through all her internal service notes to find a way around the system to hit that check box on State Schedule C, Row J, that triggered the population of F568. But I'm deeply disappointed in the product for the failure to prevent the issue in the first place.