Leaderboard

1828 Dictionary (oldest available free online): http://1828.mshaffer.com/ http://issuu.com/minutemom/docs/spring_2013 see article starting on page 24. Some minor editing problems that do not affect readability.

I have letters from the past 5 years. Still waiting on this year. Also received one from Jackson Hewitt last year as well. I put them on the wall for my clients to see. Adds credibility!!

Since you do only paper filing, will the purchaser keep paper filing your clients?

If you are sure the loan was not defaulted then the 1099-R is most likely wrong! He should request the employer to issue a corrected form ASAP.

As two of the businesses are rental income, I'm sure your client is well aware of who has paid their rent and who hasn't. I personally operate 3 businesses (mini warehouse rentals, washateria and tax business) and use one Quickbooks account and one bank statement for all three businesses. It's very easy to distinguish the income from one business to the other....expenses as well. It appears that possibly your client isn't being entirely open and honest with you. Before I would spend my time worrying whether or not I should sign a return, I'd show him the figures you have worked up so far, present an invoice to him and hope for payment, and lastly, send him down the road. If he insists he will fully cooperate with you then, I'd file an extension and work on it when time allows after I get a sizable retainer. Setting up an online account for his existing business/ personal checking accounts could be very helpful in detrrmining not only the source of his income, but the expenses as well. I would not tolerate this client playing "dumb" with me. He either fesses up and acts responsibly or he walks.

NSTALLING HUSBAND 1.0 Dear Tech Support, Last year I upgraded from Boyfriend 5.0 to Husband 1.0 and noticed a distinct slowdown in overall system performance — particularly in the flower and jewelry applications, which operated flawlessly under Boyfriend 5.0. In addition, Husband 1.0 uninstalled many other valuable pro...grams, such as Romance 9.5 and Personal Attention 6.5, and then installed undesirable programs such as NFL 5.0, NBA 3.0. And Golf Clubs 4.1. Conversation 8.0 no longer runs, and Housecleaning 2.5 simply crashes the system. I’ve tried running Nagging 5.3 to fix these problems, but to no avail. What can I do? Signed, Desperate Dear Desperate: First keep in mind, Boyfriend 5.0 is an Entertainment Package, while Husband 1.0 is an Operating System. Please enter the command: “http: I Thought You Loved Me.htm” and try to download Tears 6.2 and don’t forget to install the Guilt 3.0 update. If that application works as designed, Husband 1.0 should then automatically run the applications Jewelry 2.0 and Flowers 3.5. But remember, over use of the above application can cause Husband 1.0 to default to Grumpy Silence 2.5 Whatever you do, DO NOT install Mother-in-law 1.0 (it runs a virus in the background, that will eventually seize control of all your system resources). Also, do not attempt to re-install the Boyfriend 5.0 program. These are unsupported applications and will crash Husband 1.0. In summary, Husband 1.0 is a great program, but it does have limited memory and cannot learn new applications quickly. You might consider buying additional software to improve memory and performance. We recommend Hot Food 3.0 and Lingerie 7.7 Good Luck, Tech Support

I forgot - Make Him a Sammich 1.0

>>>We recommend Hot Food 3.0 and Lingerie 7.7<< Guaranteed to work!

Can't go wrong with the classics.

1. NO Not allowed under Circular 230. 2. YES Dump them.

Gee. I was unaware H&R Block would offer to buy a practice out. I'll have to keep that in mind when i pull the plug. With my luck it would likely be a posthumous purchase.

I would simply walk away from my business before I would sell it to HR Block. I think to much of my clients.

I dislike special breaks for deadbeats and intentional low lifes. Special breaks for someone who has experienced unexpected or uncontrollable events is not a problem. People who live their lives recklessly and with no regard for how it affects others do not deserve special breaks when things go bad. This country is on a runaway path downhill by rewarding irresponsible behavior with debt relief and tax breaks. I guess the ethics I grew up with about personal responsibility for my actions has been thrown away by our society such that the irresponsible people are living on my tax dollars.

I second all that has been said in the last few posts. Reminds me of a situation I experienced on another forum. I rarely take offense on an emotional level, even when someone gets insulting. Generally insults and personal attacks are just water off a duck's back to me. But for some reason that I still don't fully understand, a person on the TMI forum really got under my skin a couple of years back. And I was clearly pushing that person's buttons as well. After a few grenades back & forth (plus a warning from the moderator), I simply hid that person's posts for a few weeks (as Judy suggested). That removed the temptation to take pot shots at him and freed us both up to focus on what's important. - TAXES. Eventually when seeing people reply to him on legitimate tax issues, my curiosity got the best of me and I removed the "hide". Haven't crossed swords with him since then, and if we found ourselves on opposite sides of something I believe now I'd just move on. Burying the hatchet is always wise, just as long as the place we bury it isn't in the other party's head.

Thanks Eric. None of what's posted from either perspective bothers me - I like the give-and-take even when it gets a little out of hand. It's easy enough to skip over when it gets silly. But if it disturbs others then I'm fine with your guidelines and will certainly abide by them. We need to keep as many as possible engaged to suit our professional purposes. I appreciate your dedication to this forum.

Do you not realize that the use of the term 'tea bagger' is both rude and insulting? Please keep your language above that level in future. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger

To paraphrase from "The Princess Bride" -- "This word debate, I don't think it means what you think it means." Merriam-Webster: Definition of DEBATE a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides There is no provision in that definition for screaming, hissy fits, name-calling, side-stepping issues, ignoring facts, or cutting off the other person with ad hominem attacks. So poor Ms. Maddow would be left with NOTHING to say or do. If she (or any of the other soi-disant "commentators" of the left) could/would debate the issues, either Publius Huldah or Michael Badnarik would mop the floor with her (or any of the others) in about 3 seconds.

And you have just PROVEN my point: that a fact-based argument from our Founding Principles gets turned into "You're just a Know-It-All!!!" followed by more name-calling. Frankly, you didn't even deserve this much of a response.

Since we're all rambling here, did anybody notice that "thump" today. That's the sound of the bus rolling over Eric Holder.

I do not watch mainstream TV and have not for years -- too busy, and I got far too sick of the blatant leftist bias. My time is worth more. I read. What's the problem with what Sheriff Mueller wrote? Article VI of the Constitution states that all laws "made in pursuance of this Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The key phrase is "made in pursuance." Laws antithetical to the Constitution (which document includes the Bill of Rights by full incorporation, see Article VII) are, in Madison's words, "usurpations of powers NOT granted; therefore null and void." The Sheriff states he will not allow the enforcement of soi-disant "laws" which are actually merely usurpations. He thereby upholds the Constitution, as he swore to do. How is upholding the supreme Law of the Land paranoid? Why is standing by the oath one swore suspect? You need to look at your basic principles -- do you really think one should swear an oath, NOT intending to uphold it? Or that being forsworn is no big deal? Really? There is no honor and no integrity in that stance; how can you then call yourself an honorable person; one of integrity? Or are those merely old-fashioned, meaningless terms as well? They are NOT; not to me. As for the Republican party today -- they have been almost entirely taken over by the "Progressives" -- and the Democrat party has been completely subsumed by that same group outlook. Read a bit about the history of the Progressives and their antecedents, the Fabian Socialists. That ought to give you a serious case of the willies. Their stance is one of utter contempt for humanity; eugenicists and tyrants all. One of their members and spokesmen, George Bernard Shaw (yes, the famous author) stated flat-out that everyone should be required to go before a panel, yearly, to justify their existence (showing how they had produced more than they had consumed) and if they could not so do, they should be killed, as a service to humanity. Humanely, of course. They are despicable. If you understood what these people stand for, and how they have been working to destroy this country from within (for decades) you would recoil in horror and do everything in your power to bring their plans out from under the rocks they hide beneath, and to stop them.

Exaggeration, then extrapolation from the exaggeration. That is how the liberal mind presents their positions. This method is used more frequently when a liberal mind is confronted with facts, truth and logic that disprove his position.

Where are you getting this "judge, jury, and executioner" hysteria? Certainly not from anything that has been posted thus far.

The Supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter of whether or not something is Constitutional. That job is NOT part of their assigned duties (read the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1803; just a couple of pages of clear text; available at Justia Law). The states and people can nullify, and -- believe it or not -- the county sheriffs are the final arbiters/sentinels of what is or is not Constitutional in their counties. See the County Sheriff project for info.

You may have all the colors, but you have demonstrated time and again that (1) you have no understanding of the principles that this country was founded upon, and (2) that you are mainly not interested in discussing issues when you have the option of ad hominem attacks. What Herman Cain accurately calls the "SIN" tactics: Side-step the issue, Ignore facts, and Name-call.

Taxed - you do know it is possible to delete/modify your posts don't you? On several occasions I've decided in retrospect that I stepped over a line with something I posted, and I found it easy to either delete or modify the offending info. It's right there in the lower-right corner of the post.

None of the on-topic threads should turn into a political debate.

You are right jklcpa a poll should not turn into political debate.

I'm inclined to agree with Judy. This is getting ridiculous. Injecting political debate and passive aggressive barbs into every possible conversation is really starting to take its toll on the atmosphere of this community.

I can only hope that what should have been a simple poll is not going to be another thread that devolves into a political rants. There should have been no need for any commentary, and I thought I included enough choices to allow most of our forum's users to select appropriate answers. I do respect that each and every one of you has the right to express your views, whichever side of the aisle you agree with, but this shouldn't be happening across so many threads in the forums. Could we please try to stick to the topics of the original threads? Many of the threads are being derailed with this type of commentary or pointed questions that lead the conversations off topic or into debates on politics. The above 4 posts add nothing except to incite political banter, which all but a few are participating in, and it is really getting tiresome. That is the reason why we have "N/T" in the title of threads that aren't tax related, so that those of us who try to stay out of the political discussions can do so, but that is getting very difficult. Thanks, after the first thread that I chose to look at on here, now I'm in a really bad mood! /rant