kcjenkins

Here Comes Honey Boo Boo is a reality television program on TLC that features seven-year-old child beauty pageant participant Alana "Honey Boo Boo" Thompson, along with her mother June Shannon… en.wikipedia.org The series premiere episode attained a 1.6 in the 18–49 demographic, attracting 2.2 million viewers.[2] The series was one of TLC's highest-rated shows in its first season.[3] The August 29 episode, airing on Wednesday night during the 2012 Republican National Convention, attracted almost 3 million viewers and scored a 1.3 rating with those 18–49, the highest rating that night with the age group of any cable program,[4] though about 20 million in all were watching the convention. Fox News convention coverage was second in the time period with a 1.2 rating, followed by NBC coverage with 1.1.[5] Criticism Critical reaction to the series has been mixed, with some characterizing the show as "offensive", "outrageous" and "exploitative", and others calling it "must-see TV".[6][7]The A.V. Club called the first episode a "horror story posing as a reality television program,"[8] with others worrying about potential child exploitation.[9] James Poniewozik mostly praised the show, but criticized the producers for "the way that the show seems to assume that those viewers will look at this family and the world."[10] A reviewer for Forbes criticized TLC as trying to "portray Alana's family as a horde of lice-picking, lard-eating, nose-thumbing hooligans south of theMason–Dixon line," stating that "it falls flat, because there’s no true dysfunction here, save for the beauty pageant stuff."[11] The Guardian also criticized the attempt to portray the Thompsons as people to "point and snicker at," saying, "none of the women or girls who participate in the show seems to hate themselves for their poverty, their weight, their less-than-urbane lifestyle, or the ways in which they diverge from the socially-acceptable beauty standard."[12] The Hollywood Reporter pronounced the show "horrifying" explaining, "You know this show is exploitation. TLC knows it. Maybe even Mama and HBB know it, deep down in their rotund bodies. Here Comes Honey Boo Boo is a car crash, and everybody rubber-necks at a car crash, right? It’s human nature. Yes, except that if you play that card, you also have to realize that human nature comes with the capacity to draw a line, to hold fast against the dehumanization and incremental tearing down of the social fabric, even if this never-ending onslaught of reality television suggests that’s a losing effort. You can say no to visual exploitation. You can say no to TLC. And you can say no to Honey Boo Boo Child. Somebody has to."[13] June Shannon herself has been criticized for her daughter's diet, which includes "Go Go Juice", a mixture of Red Bull and Mountain Dew that contains as much caffeine as two cups of coffee. The mix is used to get her daughter ready for pageants. Shannon has responded to this criticism saying. "There are far worse things... I could be giving her alcohol."[1] She has also been praised by Mother Nature Network for her "keen business sense" with which she feeds her family on $80 a week by clipping copious coupons, playing Bingo, exploiting roadkill, and acquiring child-support checks from each of her four children’s fathers.[3] The animated TV series South Park lampooned the show's stars in its season 16 episode "Raising the Bar".[14] The show was criticized by TV Guide in their "Cheers & Jeers 2012" issue, which comments, "Jeers to Here Comes Honey Boo Boo for existing. Alana Thompson and her family have lowered the TV bar to new depths while introducing viewers to the terms 'forklift foot' and 'neck crust.' In a word, ewww."[15] The animated TV series MAD parodied the TV show called "Here Comes Yogi Boo Boo". Praise Out praised the show, after she endorsed her gay paternal uncle Lee Thompson (nicknamed Poodle) with the statement, "Ain't nothing wrong with bein' a little gay," writing that "America can learn from the seven-year-old reality star Alana Thompson... a clear message of equality..." Out noted that her acceptance of her gay relative "confounded" the stereotype of the "redneck" working-class, conservative Southern white female.[16]

http://www.chicksontheright.com/posts/item/24434-it-s-the-day-after-our-nation-s-annual-celebration-of-its-founding-so-it-seems-fitting-that-we-should-point-out-how-not-free-we-are

http://www.amazon.com/HP-LaserJet-Printer-Monochrome-P2035/dp/B001A3ZH8Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373064401&sr=8-1&keywords=hp+laserjet+printer+2035n $214.26 for new.at Amazon, $203. w/free shipping at Cost Central and $208.88 at eBay, $209.99 w/ free shipping at HP HP CE505A Laserjet 05A Cartridge - Retail Packaging - Black $79.00

I was assuming this is what you meant with the "Honey BooBoo" reference, Jack?

There is no size limit in the code! IRS Tax Tip 2013-41, March 26, 2013 If you earn money managing or working on a farm, you are in the farming business. Farms include plantations, ranches, ranges and orchards. Farmers may raise livestock, poultry or fish, or grow fruits or vegetables. Do you work on growing those vegetables? Then you are a farmer if you raise any of them 'for sale'.

Well, at least you should TRY to sell one. LOL

Yep. I used to be a Republican. Treasurer of the Country Committee, actually. Today, I feel like what Reagan said. He said "I used to be a Democrat, I did not leave the party, they left me." I don't feel either of the two major parties today really has any principles, although some of their members still do. I will always be a conservative, and I hope Iive long enough to see a party that truly supports conservative principle consistently.

IRS actually has moved in the opposite direction, with their addition of multiple bank accounts for the refunds. I like your solution, tho.

Only one piece of chicken? Not in my family! Does sound good though.

A Video Tour of Government Waste http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/62641-a-video-tour-of-government-waste/?utm_source=EmailElect&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%2319098&utm_campaign=07-01-2013%20IJ%20Review

The AICPA has requested changes in a Senate bill aimed at combating the growing problem of identity theft and tax fraud to avoid increased penalties for tax preparers who improperly disclose or use taxpayer information. Senator Bill Nelson, D-Fla., introduced the Identity Theft and Tax Fraud Prevention Act of 2013, S. 676, in April. The AICPA sent a comment letter to the Senate Finance Committee last Thursday supporting many of the provisions in the proposed legislation, but also calling for changes in a few provisions that would increase tax preparer penalties. “The AICPA applauds and supports the majority of the provisions,” wrote AICPA Tax Executive Committee chairman Jeffrey A. Porter. Among the provisions supported by the AICPA are those that would enhance the Identity Protection Personal Identification Number (IP PIN) program, limit the number of refunds to the same mailing address or account and restrict access to the Death Master File, which is maintained by the Social Security Administration. One provision in S. 676 to which the AICPA said it strongly objected was the increased penalty under Sections 7216 and 6713 of the Internal Revenue Code for improper disclosure or use of information by preparers of returns. Porter said that increased penalties under these sections would not deter identity theft for two reasons: 1) Most tax-related identity theft is not perpetrated by those who prepare tax returns, and 2) if someone who purports to be a tax return preparer does engage in tax-related identity theft, there are more narrowly tailored and severe penalties in other parts of the Tax Code and under criminal laws. The AICPA supported a provision in the bill that would add a new criminal penalty for using a false identity in connection with tax fraud. It would impose a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. The AICPA made two recommendations to help combat tax identity theft. The first recommendation would implement new processes to verify a taxpayer’s address before the refund is paid. The second recommendation would expand the use of IRS’s IP PIN program, which is available to taxpayers who have been the victim of tax-related identity theft so that taxpayers could request an IP PIN before becoming a victim of identity theft. The IP PIN could be used in place of a Social Security number when filing a tax return. http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/AICPA-Senate-Identity-Theft-Tax-Fraud-Tax-Preparers-67321-1.html?ET=webcpa:e7335:61496a:&st=email

You can not make a honest person steal just by not watching them, IMHO. Her own conscience should have been what was "holding her to ethical standards," not some outside agency. And no normal person 'starts out as a criminal', good schools or not.

love them all.............even if they are corny, they are fun.

It is not the governments place to tell partnerships how to structure their partnership agreements. Any more than they should be able to tell you how to decorate your home! Only when public safety is a serious factor should they be able to set the rules. But the thing no one is mentioning is the thing that bothered me the most when I read the article. That was the part about how the EEOC reacted to the company's objections. First citing a rule that the company was well aware of, and in compliance with, then refusing to even discuss it once that was pointed out to them. Just threatening legal action, which is clearly a bald-faced attempt at using the power of the government's deep pockets to cost them millions to fight for their rights.

Odds are, though, that she will refuse to testify, get cited for contempt of congress, liberal groups will raise millions for her 'defense', and it will drag on in the courts well past the next national election. Whether she goes to jail or not, most voters will have forgotten who she is, if they ever knew, by that time. Only thing that might come of it, if she is cited for contempt of congress, she MIGHT lose her cushy paycheck, and that job overseeing IRS administration of Obamacare?

No amount of regulation or required education and/or certification can stop a crook from being a crook.

Properly, though much less amusingly, the whole prefix - anti- should have been chopped off. That said, 'an' can stand as a prefix in its own right, usually meaning a negative, and taken directly from classical Greek where it works in the same way. The others work as follows (although the majority, I should stress, are rarely, if ever in use): Ebriate, from Latin ebriatus: made drunk, means intoxicated. Scrutable, from Latin scrutari: to examine, means that which can be understood by scrutiny. delible, from Latin delebilis that may be blotted out, thus meaning capable of being deleted or effaced. defatigable, from Latin fatigare: to tire, means apt to be wearied; capable of being wearied. gainly, from obsolete Scots dialect, means variously proper, suitable, becoming; ready to help, kindly, gracious; (of conduct) graceful, tactful; (of bodily form attitude, or movement) graceful, shapely. sipid, a back-formation from Latin L. insipidus tasteless, means savoury couth (which has a variety of other meanings dating from 1000) in this context means cultured, well-mannered. gruntled, a back-formation from disgruntled, means pleased, satisfied, contented. consolate, from Latin consolari: to console, means consoled. eptitude exists, it's a noun formation of the adj. ept: able, although most cited users seem to add "if this is a real word" to their comment. parage, from French parage, meaning equality in rank, means noble lineage or high rank; value, worth; equality of birth or station, as in members of the same family. Ertia, putably and pensible do not exist, although the same logic applied to them would mean that they mean the opposite of INertia, DISputably, and INDISpensible. Fascinating how many actually may be found in dictionaries, if not in general use.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is reportedly pressing PricewaterhouseCoopers and other major accounting firms to drop their longstanding mandatory retirement age policies, and the American Institute of CPAs is asking them to stop. EEOC’s Chicago office is asking PwC to eliminate its mandatory retirement age of 60 for partners and principals. A 1967 law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, prohibits mandatory retirement ages for employees at most types of businesses, but partnerships such as accounting firms are typically exempted on the theory that business owners can’t discriminate against themselves. A mandatory retirement age policy has been in place at PwC’s pre-merger predecessor firms Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand since the 1960s, according to the WSJ, but the EEOC did not begin prodding PwC to change the policy until 2010. The firm asked the EEOC to clarify its concerns in January of this year, and the agency responded by merely describing a six-part test from a 2003 decision by the Supreme Court in a case known as Clackamas Gastroenterology v. Wells to determine who qualifies as an employee in a partnership. PwC’s attorneys were already well aware of the Clackamas test and asked the EEOC for the opportunity to work out a proposal to address the agency’s concerns. But the EEOC reportedly broke off negotiations with the firm and is considering the possibility of suing PwC to change its mandatory retirement policy. The EEOC is reportedly looking at Deloitte and KPMG as well, and that is raising worries in the CPA profession that it may begin pressuring the accounting profession at large to drop mandatory retirement age policies, which have traditionally enabled younger members of the firms to advance in their careers and eventually make partner. In a letter to members of the EEOC, the AICPA has expressed concern that a significant expansion of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act would be detrimental to the accounting profession and respectfully requested that the EEOC decline to continue on this path. In a June 25 letter from AICPA president and CEO Barry C. Melancon, the Institute wrote, “We do not dispute that hundreds of thousands of non-partner employees are appropriately covered by the ADEA. However, we believe that accounting firm partners (those who own and control a portion of each firm) are not covered by the ADEA, and we do not believe they should be under consideration, as the possible action contends. Our position is consistent with—and relies upon—longstanding EEOC policy that presumes that partners are not ‘employees’ for purposes of anti-discrimination laws. A change that treats accounting firm partners as ‘employees’ would upend the long-established expectations and business reliance interests of the accounting profession.” “Accounting firms have structured their partners’ compensation, capital contributions, buyouts, pensions, agreed-upon retirement dates, deferred compensation, voting rights, benefits, governance, and termination policies in reliance on the specific understandings evidenced by partnership agreements,” Melancon pointed out. “In particular, retirement policy provisions allow for the predictable progression of lesser tenured individuals into the partnership, and facilitate the orderly transition of a firm’s clients from senior partners to junior partners.” “As the EEOC considers whether to expand the ADEA’s scope, we hope you will maintain the flexibility that allows CPAs to organize themselves and plan their succession as they see fit within the bounds of the existing law,” the AICPA letter concluded. http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Concern-Mounts-Mandatory-Retirement-Age-Policies-Accounting-Firms-67290-1.html?ET=webcpa:e7322:61496a:&st=email While I think there are good arguments that 60 may be to low, that's not really the issue that bothers me. It's that the EEOC is ignoring the laws it was created to enforce, refusing to discuss the legal issues, and using the threat of very costly legal battles to try to bully their targets into doing what the law clearly does not require.

Sounds like you have a problem with that "lease" if the corp owns the building, which it does [if I'm understanding the facts] as the LLC is a disregarded entity. If HE owns the corp, his owning the LLC would not solve the problem either. Hope you are getting a good retainer on this one. Doubt he's going to like the answers. His failure to get good tax advice BEFORE he acted is going to bite him hard.

As the bus stopped and it was her turn to get on, she became aware that her skirt was way too tight to allow her leg to come up to the height of the first step of the bus. Slightly embarrassed and with a quick smile to the bus driver, she reached behind her to unzip her skirt a little, thinking that this would give her enough slack to raise her leg. She tried to take the step, only to discover that she still couldn't! So, a little more embarrassed, she once again reached behind her to unzip her skirt a little more, and for the second time attempted the step. Once again, much to her chagrin, she could not raise her leg. With a little smile to the driver, she again reached behind to unzip a little more and yet again was unable to take the step. About this time, a large Texan who was standing behind her picked her up easily by the waist and placed her gently on the step of the bus. She went ballistic and turned to the would-be Samaritan and screeched, "How dare you touch my body! I don't even know who you are!" The Texan smiled, tipped his hat, and drawled, "Well, ma'am, normally I would agree with you, but after you unzipped my fly three times, I kind'a figured we was pretty good friends."

The rap singer known as “Fat Joe” has been sentenced to four months in prison for failing to file income tax returns on more than $3.3 million in taxable income. Cartagena admitted he received gross income of over $1.18 million in 2007, more than $1.28 million in 2008, over $265,000 in 2009, and more than $630,000 in 2010. The total tax loss to the government was $718,038. In addition to the prison term, Judge Waldor sentenced Cartagena to one year of supervised release and fined him $15,000. He must report by Aug. 26, 2013, to begin serving his sentence.

#3 seems very valid, when you just think about how their other products, like Quickbooks, routinely offer your clients 'their option' to cut you out.

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., has scheduled oral arguments for September 24 to hear the Internal Revenue Service's appeal of Loving v. IRS, the case in which a trio of independent tax preparers successfully sued the IRS to suspend its mandatory testing and continuing education requirements for tax preparers.

You slightly misread, or I did not make it clear, that the point you did accept, is the point that bothers me. Sure, once we efile a return it is on the software company servers and the IRS and state servers. But it's also on mine, and if I need for some reason to look at a return I did 8 years ago, it's there AND SO IS THE PROGRAM THAT CREATED IT. But if I use a 'cloud' program, and then I change companies, how much access will I have to the files? Yes, I can store a pdf copy, but I can't, as I understand it, manipulate a file except through their program. If so, and I want to amend a return I filed through a company I no longer use, do I have to recreate it in the new software? Or if a client wants to know, "If back In 19__, I had overlooked _______ what would that have changed on my return?" can I go back and 'play with the numbers'?

Dee, so sorry for your loss, but good that you got there before the end. My prayers will be for you to be strengthened by your good memories of your loved one.