kcjenkins

Boudreaux Investigates The Louisiana State Police had received numerous reports of illegal cockfights being held in the area around Abbeville and had sent their famous Detective Boudreaux from Thibodeaux to investigate. Boudreaux promptly began his investigation and then reported to his Commander the next morning. "Dey is tree main groups involve in dis rooster Fightin", he began. "Good work! Who are they?" the Commander asked. Boudreaux replied confidently, "De Texas Aggies, de local Cajuns, and de Mafia from N'awlins". Puzzled, the Commander asked, "Now Boudreaux, how did you find all that out in one night?" "Well," he replied, "I went down and done seen dat rooster fight in person. And I knowed immedjiately dat dem Aggies was involved when a Duck was entered in the fight." The Commander nodded, "I'll buy that. But what about the others?" Boudreaux nodded knowingly, "Well, I knowed de Cajuns was involved when sum body bet on de duck!" "Ah, I see, I see....." sighed the Commander "And how did you figure the Mafia was involved?" "De duck won."

Probably not, since the estate has already given them all there was. If they were saying the daughter owed those taxes, they would not have to play games about the amount, now would they?

Americans Deserve the IRS Walter E. Williams | May 29, 2013 Individually, Americans do not deserve to be subservient to such a fear-mongering, intimidating and powerful agency as the Internal Revenue Service; but collectively, we do. Let's look at it. Since the 1791 ratification of our Constitution, until well into the 1920s, federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product never exceeded 5 percent, except during war. Today federal spending is 25 percent of our GDP. State and local government spending is about 15 percent of the GDP. That means government spends more than 40 cents of each dollar we earn. If we add government's regulatory burden, which is simply a disguised form of taxation, the government take is more than 50 percent of what we produce. In order to squeeze out of us half of what we produce, a government tax collection agency must be ruthless and able to put the fear of God into its citizens. The IRS has mastered that task. Congress has given it powers that would be deemed criminal if used by others. For example, the Constitution's Fifth Amendment protects Americans against self-incrimination and being forced to bear witness against oneself. That's precisely what one does when he is compelled to sign his income tax form. However, a Fifth Amendment argument can't be used as a defense in a court of law. The IRS will counter that you voluntarily provided the information on your tax return. If you're in debt to Bank of America, Wells Fargo or any other private creditor, in order for it to garnish your wages as a means of collecting debt, it must first get a court order. By contrast, the IRS can garnish your wages without having to get a court order first. If your employer doesn't obey the IRS and send it a portion of your wages, he will be held accountable for what you owe. At the minimum, some IRS collection procedures violate one of the basic tenets of the rule of law -- namely, the law of the land applies equally to individuals (and other private entities) and the government (and its officials and agents). Our Founding Fathers feared the emergence of an agency such as the IRS and its potential for abuse. That's why they gave us Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which reads: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." A capitation is a tax placed directly on an individual. That's what an income tax is. The founders feared the abuse and the government power inherent in a direct tax. In Section 8 of Article 1, they added, "But all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." These protections the founders gave us were undone by the Progressive era's 16th Amendment, which reads, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." If federal spending were only 5 percent of our GDP ($750 billion) -- instead of 25 percent ($3.8 trillion) -- there would be no need for today's oppressive and complicated tax system. You might ask, "How could we be a great nation without all the government spending?" When our Constitution was ratified in 1791, we were a weak and poor nation. One hundred forty years later, with federal spending a mere pittance of what it is today, we became the world's richest and most powerful nation. No small part of this miracle was limited and unintrusive government. The bottom line is that members of Congress need such a ruthless tax collection agency as the IRS because of the charge we Americans have given them. We want what the IRS does -- namely, to take the earnings of one American so Congress can create a benefit for some other American. Don't get angry with IRS agents. They are just following orders. http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/05/29/inority-view-n1607099/page/full

ok, I misunderstood what they were offering. If it is just a way of getting paid at prep time, I'd think the built in process from ATX [or whatever software you use] would be cheaper or just as cheap, And transparent to your clients.

Unless they pay you enough to rebuild the records to your level of comfort, why should you make their problem into your headache, at best, or real problem, at worst. You don't need to prepare a return you can't feel ok about signing. That is an invitation to become his excuse, and the IRS would never accept that as a legal option either.

I agree with you, Taxed, where there is joint ownership with right of survivorship, the surviving spouse owns the property, and IRS can only go after it if the taxes owed were joint. I've won such a case, myself. The agent tried to use an emotional "you have a moral obligation" argument on her, but I'd already prepared her that she had no legal obligation. She'd have had to sell her home to pay them, so she was glad she'd talked to me first.

You have to make your own call, but when it comes to tax prep fee collection, I would be VERY careful about turning that over to any outside company. It will affect not only that client but possibly others as well, if word of that gets out. IMHO, its sometimes better to write it off, or to offer a client extra time to pay. The thing is, you want to keep the relationship professional, not like an off-the-shelf business. Talking to the client personally will keep you on the high ground. Just my 2 cents worth.

Opps, you are correct, Jack. Must have been half asleep when I posted that.

I think we all should do this. Our congresscritters may be a bit more sensitive right now, to anything about the IRS.

Joel, I will merge them if you REALLY WANT ME TO, but I think it's a valuable enough message that keeping both threads makes sense to me, because some will read the new one that perhaps skip this one.

Yes, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too. No way is that your fault. Tell him, "that's the law, so that's how it has to be reported."

Many states require collision insurance, which is basically to protect the person you hit, rather than yourself. Comprehensive on a car worth only $1000 is probably not worth buying, unless there is no deductible. This varies from state to state. But I strongly agree with John, a car that has been flooded is going to be nothing but problems pretty soon. The smell and damage to the interior is nothing, it's the corrosion and damage to the wiring that is going to make it not worth anything soon.

Non-profit group waited for tax-exempt approval for almost 2-1/2 years. IRS agent lectures the president of the organization about forcing its religion and beliefs on others and inaccurately explains that the group must remain neutral on issues such as abortion. Press Release: http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8247 Full audio: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ProLife RevolutionIRScall.wav Full transcript: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ProLifeRevolutionCallTranscriptIRS.pdf Audio clips with words graphically displayed on screen: http://vimeo.com/67822932

Nope, we finally got it resolved sort of. Actually the person who actually owned the account cashed it out that 5th year. Don't know if they switched broker or what, but it ended the problem. This was no small overlooked account, the amount of dividends was over 20K each year. That last year I actually got to talk to an IRS employee with a heart, who looked at the record, saw the repetitions, and looked up the details and told me that, while she could not tell me any details, she could see that the account was closed that year, so we should not have any more of that problem. And she was right.

It should. I had a client that had that problem for 5 years running. Made me so mad that the IRS would not help us to make the broker [Merrill] correct their records to stop reporting the dividends to my client's SSN, or tell us who it actually belonged to. Each year we had to contest the 1099-DIV, and each year, they took it off, but they would not order the brokerage to correct things at their end. And Merrill just ignored every request to clear it up.

Your solution is the proper one. It's a pain, but it's really they only way. At that point an actual human will look at the return, and usually that is all it takes to clear things up.

Thanks for that info, Kea. Good to get a final ruling on it.

Hopefully 7 more years of comfort and enjoyment, during which she can make gifts as she desires, with charitable donations as she desires, etc. And she can now be assured that she will not be one of the 'forgotten' elderly!

The thing that blows my mind is the idea that the IRS [or any gov agency, for that matter] could tell any citizen, "You are not allowed to own a savings account". On what grounds? Why? He "made too many transfers"???? So trying to maximize his interest earned in a time of extreme low interest rates is wrong? Why? Thats taxable income, the IRS should like that, shouldn't they?

Entertainer and PJTV pundit Alfonzo Rachel is crying foul…and possibly racism. Rachel is a black conservative living in California. His popular video rants typically cover topics such as big government and faith. While his latest video is no different, it took a more personal turn when Rachel revealed he had been targeted by the IRS and the California state tax board. Apparently the IRS has forbidden Rachel from owning a savings account after they notified him that he made too many transfers from savings to checking (seriously?). Now the author and musician can ONLY hold checking accounts. That in itself is outrageous (the government can tell you what kind of bank account you can and can’t own?) but the outrage doesn’t end there. Recently Rachel awoke to discover the California state tax board had completely drained his checking account of every dime…without warning, notification or even any charges. In the video Rachel says he’s not sure if the IRS is behind it yet, “but I do know California is big on hating Republicans. And California is big on the state and federal government taking from others.” Could this be yet another ripple in the growing IRS scandal? If it is politically motivated, could there be an element of racism as well? Rachel discusses at length the Democrat’s history of using organized political groups to harm and bully black Americans, and draws a loose comparison here using the left’s own rules of accusations of racism. In an interview Rachel told me, “I don’t know if this is the IRS’ [doing] but they’re still in violation of the supreme law of the land by depriving me of my property without due process. They punished me before charging me.” He went on to say that while he was very angry at first he was humbled as he heard about the children lost in the Moore, Oklahoma tornado.“God was like, what did you lose? So I’m not mad about the money. I’m angry about an audacious government that insists on making us subjects. That’s the sickening part.” The longtime musician maintains he knows of no violations on his part and is completely clueless as to why the state “burglarized” his account. Could the fact that this publicly outspoken black man enthusiastically exposes the racist origins and Marxist values of the Democrat party be in any way responsible for this sudden violation? Is this racially motivated? Politically motivated? A month ago those questions would have been perceived by most people as hilariously paranoid. Kira Davis On June 6, 2013

Terry was commenting on what he saw as inconsistencies in some of your posts. I have not bothered to look back to see if he was right, that was not MY point. I was responding to the insult you felt the need to fire at him. And the idea that he was "too late to post" is also something that we don't do here, but I understood that you are too new to the board to know that. Fact is, sometimes someone comes across an old thread that they feel a need to respond to, and that is OK here. Sometimes they just are bothered by something that they see as an inconsistency, and that is OK too. You don't have to agree, but in this case the best thing would have been to just ignore it. If not that, then you might have asked him for specifics. What you should not do is just order the poster to shut up, and especially not to then add an insult as well. Terry does not post often, and sometimes he is 'behind the curve" a bit when he comes here and tries to catch up. But that is OK, he's a good guy just the same. Please, try to be a little more tolerant and less sensitive. Sometimes it's hard to judge 'tone' when reading posts.

Sure you can respond. Just do it in a civil manner and I will not touch it, even if I don't agree with it. I think you must have noticed that many of your posts I do not respond to negatively, and some I've even checked the 'Like" button. Just calm down, and don't accuse others 'in advance' of flaming, like you did in your newest thread please. I don't want to fight with you.

Tom, I will contact you directly, don't want to lose touch, for sure. You may have noticed I've been pretty much staying out of most of it, [my tongue is getting pretty sore ] but I think those couple of new members who have been flinging gas on the fire may get bored soon. Eric is right, it has gotten out of hand, because certain posters can't respect any difference of opinion. Hopefully, it's going to improve.

Strange, I responded too, yesterday?