Leaderboard

I think if you can document that a hairstylist is present, you can pay for the lunch and get CE credit for the meeting.

OK, I wasn't at lunch, she was just telling me about THEIR lunch, but that would be still be a Webinar, right, if I can get them to take a selfie and send it to me? Maybe a video of key points? They'd be happy to do that. Right, am I right?

Rita, you are SO right! I'm sure it's somewhere in those 74,608 pages.

Were any of the friends also hairdressers? That would lend more weight to their advice. /s

Oooooooo...Very funny...Giving my age away...I saw it when it aired on Johnny.......Thanks Catherine..

Client: I was having lunch with my girlfriends and talking about the taxes we all had to pay this year. Barb asked me if Jeff did side jobs cause they always owe till they consider the side jobs. Me: The only way side jobs reduce your taxes is if you lose money on them. They are happy about losing money? Yeah, yeah, I know what’s going on. They are reporting expenses and not income. I went over that with her, too. Sigh. I wish they wouldn't talk about taxes at lunch.

This is hilarious https://www.facebook.com/dailybestlike/videos/379780572221122/?fref=nf

If A takes a loss on his partnership interest, does that affect the basis in the assets? I don't have a research materials with me so don't have the answer. Are the parties related? Does the transaction have what the IRS calls "economic substance"? Did A contribute appreciated/depreciated assets to the partnership? This whole thing sounds like a windfall for B, which may be the intent of A. (A had appreciated property and stock, stuck it in a partnership, abandoned it, and gets to claim a loss instead of a gain.) The reason I'm skeptical is that after years of struggling through multiple courses in partnership taxation I realized that the reason why the rules are so unbelievably complex is that people have used partnerships to do all sorts of things to avoid taxable income. When the IRS catches on and creates a new rule, people find ways around it, which leads to more new rules. I often felt that the only way to clarify the taxation of partnerships is to throw that whole section of code away and start over.

A comedic classic, well worth your two minutes of amusement and amazement! Copper Clapper Caper - Johnny Carson & Jack Webb

Looks like the period of the SOL. http://www.irs.gov/uac/ERO-Duties-After-Submitting-the-Return-to-the-IRS We store our digitally and have not really thought about purging them; so we have many more than the three years required.

Confusing and contradictory information here. Try again with more details about the Client's situation before the 1031. Also, if you are going to work on this, get a BIG retainer. You will earn your pay on this one.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A CIA-backed technology company has found logins and passwords for 47 government agencies strewn across the Web — available for hackers, spies and thieves. Recorded Future, a social media data mining firm backed by the CIA's venture capital arm, says in a report that login credentials for nearly every federal agency have been posted on open Internet sites for those who know where to look. According to the company, at least 12 agencies don't require authentication beyond passwords to access their networks, so those agencies are vulnerable to espionage and cyberattacks. The company says logins and passwords were found connected with the departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury and Energy, as well as the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence. Shocking, just shocking

I would have seen it, except I never stayed up that late!

Me too, Elrod. Still very funny.

That's pretty cool. Donate to a new nonprofit you set up to receive the donation. Get a tax deduction on your 1040. Then the private (not nonprofit) walks away with the donation at no cost to them. I can see why people retire to Arizona!

I never had any requests for my small practice. But for all the years I worked for Block, the district managers would come into our office each summer and pull a handful to mail to the IRS. Until the point where they were stored electronically, so visits to the offices were no longer necessary.

There may be nonprofit rules that supercede the partnership agreement. For example, is the nonprofit allowed by federal or state law to forfeit his partnership units to B or must he give them to another nonprofit or even to the state or return them to the donor or...?

I had a request one time and after the three year time frame. I was told by the IRS agent that they realized it was outside the required time frame but they hoped I still had it.

I only have 17 years of efiling, but I have had the exact same lack of anyone ever asking for an 8879. At the firm, same thing.

And in 20 years of efiling, I've never had the feds or a state ask for efile authorization forms.

Absolutely!

I think it's going to be Sec 731 and/or 732. And I think it's going to be a long and boring day.

The remaining partner's basis would be his basis plus the forfeiting partners basis at the time of the transfer.

The "Underground Unreported" income is almost a ubiquitous thing with people in business. "I only show a small profit on my business, but if I count all my 'side job' money, I make a whole lot more. There is no way I am reporting all the business I do for cash."

They're supposed to fix this in 2015 by adding a check box on letter options for paper filing. It will automatically have the address which you can override if you wish. Edit: In the mean time, you have to change the preference under client communications to "Calculate based on efile status".

A horrible example of what can happen to someone when the IRS decides to abuse their power. KC At the historic federal courthouse in Marquette, Michigan, on Washington Street near Lake Superior (known as the UP, or Upper Peninsula) and after a five-year criminal investigation and a four-count felony indictment, Jon Matteson — who lives in Moran, Michigan, and was in the marine-service business with two full-service marines on Gun Lake — was found not guilty on all four charges of income-tax evasion. The jury trial began on Monday, May 18; and the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty on Friday, May 22. Matteson, if convicted, faced up to 20 years in a federal prison and fines of up to $1 million. The case was prosecuted out of the Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S. Attorney’s Office by Assistant U.S. Attorney B. Rene Shekmer and IRS special agent Rick Pike. Matteson was defended by one of the nation’s top criminal defense lawyers, lead counsel Michael Minns, and his partner Ashley Arnett, both of the law firm Minns and Arnett (formerly The Minns Firm), and local counsel Karl Numinen. The government had previously indicted the trustee of Matteson’s trust, Herb Friske, who pleaded guilty and received time in prison. Friske, during the trial of Matteson, testified that he pleaded guilty after Pike conducted a raid on his home, breaking down the door in the wee hours of the morning, handcuffing his ill wife, cuffing his son and restraining him on the floor with four officers holding M16s to his head. Friske testified Pike threatened him with nine years in prison and that both his wife and his son would be indicted if he did not agree to plead guilty to a felony. Both Friske and Matteson had purchased trusts from alleged expert David Simmons, who operated out of Sarasota, Florida. Simmons had secretly cooperated with the IRS to accuse and convict his two former clients of tax evasion by voluntarily testifying before a grand jury against each client: Friske in 2010 and Matteson in December 2014. Both Friske and Matteson claimed that they had paid Simmons a great deal of money to give them tax and trust-planning advice. Simmons, however, had twice secretly testified before grand juries that he did not do that. During the trial itself, Simmons testified that he never gave legal advice or accounting advice or any other advice regarding trusts. Matteson’s former tax preparer, Bill Ayers, testified that he quit doing Matteson’s tax returns when Pike approached him and “suggested” that Ayers quit doing Matteson’s work. Ayers testified that he was then fearful of losing his license if he did not do as Pike asked. During a blistering cross-examination by Minns, Simmons admitted that he had worked for A.L. Williams and was called a “termite.” Williams’ “termites” would “sell” generally elderly customers on the idea that they should convert the valuable equity in their whole life insurance policies into cash and “invest” the cash with them. Most of Williams’ “termite” customers lost all or most of their equity in their insurance. Simmons angrily responded that he failed to see what his past had to do with Matteson’s trial. Minns calmly smiled and told him, “That’s for the jury to decide.” And in short order, it would. Simmons also admitted that he had a $1 million tax lien against him, that he had been ordered by the Florida State Bar not to practice law, that he had signed a consent agreement, that he had been found guilty of using a false Social Security number and that had been found guilty by a tax court judge of selling useless trusts of the same nature as the one he had sold both Friske and Matteson. Pike never took the witness stand to explain his actions. In his closing argument Minns asked the jury why the IRS would separate a legitimate tax preparer from his client, Matteson, while simultaneously doing nothing to separate him or anyone else from con man termite Simmons. IRS revenue officer Jaime Howard testified that Matteson owed back taxes for incorrectly prepared returns in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 in substantial amounts. However, on cross examination by Minns she admitted she may have gotten her figures wrong and it was possible that Matteson owed no taxes and, in fact, was due a refund. Earlier, on cross-examination, another IRS agent, Victoria O’Brien, was interrogated by Arnett, who introduced a refund check for 2013 in the amount of $529 through the IRS agent. The agent agreed it was a bona fide refund check from the IRS, and she admitted under Arnett’s continued and forceful questioning that it meant the IRS believed no taxes were due as of 2013 on any returns previously filed. The government gave no clear explanation for this inconsistency. In his final argument to the jurors, Minns reminded them that one IRS expert said she wasn’t sure a tax was owed and another said the refund for 2013, received in 2014, meant no tax was owed for the previous years. The jury deliberated for two hours on Thursday afternoon and continued until 11 on Friday morning before reaching its unanimous not guilty verdict on all counts. Shekmer appeared to be shocked by the verdict and asked that the jury be polled. Twelve jurors then rose and one by one said that “not guilty” was his or her verdict. The case was tried in a small, old courthouse near Lake Superior to a full courtroom of supporters of the Matteson family, onlookers who simply came to watch Minns’ trial expertise (some of whom traveled hundreds of miles) and numerous IRS officials who also tend to flock to these trials when Minns is leading the defense. The US~Observer has found only nine acquittals on criminal tax evasion counts this entire year by American juries. All nine belong to Minns and Arnett. If you are aware of a bona fide not guilty jury verdict this year, particularly if it involved misconduct by government officials, please notify the US~Observer at 541-474-7885 or send an email to [email protected]. If you or anyone you know has done business with Simmons, or purchased trust products, or received legal or accounting advice from him, please notify us as well. –Edward Snook

Verify his DOB from his birth certificate. IRS very seldom gets this one wrong. Even some parents don't know the exact birthdate of their children.