Looks like the OP has asked this twice: https://accountants.intuit.com/community/proconnect-tax-discussions/discussion/trying-to-lock-a-prior-year-client/00/291882 @elaine-hatch Please refrain from posting duplicate questions.  You can always add to your original question if you need to clarify certain info.

That's probably because of QBO.  If so, you may want to join the handful who have already voted for a fix: https://accountants.intuit.com/community/proconnect-tax-idea-exchange/please-please-add-a-way-to-change-client-types-business-vs/idi-p/139071 In the meantime, perhaps try creating the return from within ProConnect Tax instead?

It will be locked automatically once you e-file the return.  See this article for more info: https://accountants.intuit.com/support/en-us/help-article/electronic-filing/lock-unlock-returns-proconnect-tax/L3Suxy6wy_US_en_US

@sjrcpa wrote: Intuit got a big fine recently, too. When  T u r d o T a x  generates revenue in the billions each year and has an operating margin in excess of 60%, a fine of $141 million doesn't even amount to a slap on the wrist.  That's why businesses keep doing what they do.  Paying fines is just part of the cost of doing business these days.

@TaxGuyBill wrote: FICA is Chapter 23. For purposes of FICA, the person is still a Nonresident Alien (until they meet the requirements to become a Resident Alien without the election). For the sake of clarity and for others who may come across this post in the future, FICA is under Chapter 21, not Chapter 23 (which is for FUTA).  FICA liability is also not determined by whether an individual is a US person based on §7701(b).  In fact, FICA is assessed on wages as defined in §3121(a), pursuant to §3101. Except as provided for under §861(a)(3), compensation for labor or personal services performed in the US is US source income, which is subject to FICA.  In other words, FICA is assessable on foreign nationals who may be deemed an NRA under §7701(b), whether or not the compensation is paid by or on behalf of a US or foreign employer. There are, however, various exceptions (this is tax law we're dealing with after all).  One of which is where totalization agreement's detached worker rule applies.  Another is the carve out in §3121(b)(19) for services performed by F, J, M, and Q visa holders so long as they remain an NRA and those services are performed to carry out the purposes of their respective visas.

@JSK wrote: Thank you for your help!  We do need to complete SE form.  My client was able to reach someone at the UN to help with this.  He knew he was only responsible for half the social security and medicare, but he has since been informed that he will file the SE form, and the UN will reimburse him for 1/2 the tax. Exactly.  This is how the process works.

Can't tell where to enter on ProConnect until it is clear what the character of this income is. Sounds very much like this is one of those ad-hoc arrangements that employers make with employees, often with flawed logic and without consultation with a tax advisor or legal counsel. Based on the limited info you provided, these payments in relation to the termination of your client's employment should constitute wages.  The regs are very clear that remuneration for services, unless excepted by the statute, constitutes wages even though at the time paid the relationship of employer and employee no longer exists between the person in whose employ the services were performed and the individual who performed them. In other words, a W-2 should have been issued each year for these payments and FICA along with FIT/SIT should have been withheld.  If the intention was to fund the insurance premium on a net basis, FICA, FIT, and SIT should have been grossed up.

@andreactamayo wrote: The first one is from a foreign company located in Slovakia. Was your client on secondment from the US to Slovakia, at least as far as the local employment is concerned? The second is from a self- employed job with clients located in US.   Tax question aside, what kind of visa is your client on in Slovakia?  Employment visas typically do not legally permit side gigs. Also, regardless on whether immigration regulations may have been breached, such self-employment income should be subject to Slovakian tax.  Is your client paying tax locally for this income? Another related question: What type of entity structure is your client operating this business under?  Have you considered the US tax classification of this entity and the related US tax implications as well as information reporting obligation? I would like to make sure that his self-employment income has to pay Social Security taxes in US due to that this income is not consider a foreign source of income. Where one pays social security tax under a totalization agreement is not determined by the sourcing of income but based on territorial and detached worker rules.  If these are not familiar terms, you would want to do some research. Can his services be consider performed in US while he is living abroad ?  No

If the US person's NRA spouse has no US tax filing requirement, there is nothing that stops that US person from claiming standard deduction. If the NRA spouse has a US tax filing obligation, it most likely means that there's more than just FDAP subject to final withholdings and that there is probably US-ECI for which I/D may be claimed, however small that amount may be. §63(c)(6)(A) clearly stipulates MFS spouses would not be eligible for S/D if either itemizes.  Subparagraph (B) then states that NRA's are not eligible for S/D.  If the Congress had intended anything different and that special considerations should be given to US persons with NRA spouses who are required to itemize, one would surmise that such a treatment would be codified. At the end of the day, it is long established that federal income tax deductions are a matter of legislative grace.  If a taxpayer believes a deduction is allowable under the Code, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer.

@Tributos wrote: It would be a great time saver to have the ability for taxpayers to sign a 7216 after reviewing their return. Wouldn't you have your client sign that at the start of your engagement? If you are thinking that this is applicable to Audit Protection Service, wouldn't this also depend on whether you outsource the notice review/response to this external service provider behind the scene, with you fronting the client (which should probably require it) or your client buys the protection through you and contact the service provider directly (which should render the disclosure irrelevant)? I don't use their services and probably never will trust the handling of notices for our returns with an external service provider but that would be my take based on my understanding of how it works, without reviewing the T&C's.

Not yet.  There are a quite a few who have suggested but the one listed below has the most vote.  Join the petition and hope Intuit will consider making the change: https://accountants.intuit.com/community/proconnect-tax-idea-exchange/checkmark-confirm-data-has-been-reviewed/idi-p/132429

First, this is not an Idea Exchange suggestion for product enhancement.  Second, there is no need to duplicate your question. Please re-post this as a regular tax question and clarify whether your client resides in Canada.