kcjenkins

Good to know, Ken. It's a very hopeful sign that they admit their mistakes and are facing customers, not hiding behind glib sales talk.

Cat, if he was full time for one semester, he's good.

Good point, Ed, although I would have certainly added significant "consulting fees" had I been foolish enough to take this on.

Ditto

Sorry, Dee, I think that Max W is right. Thing is, OIC officer does not really care whether the business survives. They just look at what assets can be liquidated to pay off the debt. Using the OIC forms can help in determining that, but unless you can show that all the assets are basically worthless, they are not going to forgive the debt. An installment agreement, however might help them to work their way out of the spot they put themselves in.

I suggest you read the most recent blog from Niger Innis, National Spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). "The purposeful restriction of knowledge has been at the heart of untold misery and hardship in this world. Serfs were kept illiterate so as to not jeopardize the feudal system. Slaves were kept in the dark on a variety of subjects so as to not provide them the possibility of escape. Today, knowledge remains elusive to so many because the media does not allow for facts that run contrary to the narratives they favor. Nowhere is this more evident than in the narratives concerning gun control. Though our supposed betters in the media see no reason to share this with the American public, gun control, a sanitized term for the systemic restriction of rights, has its earliest origins in racism. The concept is simple enough: enable the selected group to remain armed while working to disarm the unselected group. In America, this has been mainly black, Hispanic and immigrant populations." here's a link to the whole thing http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-long-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/ A black man speaks out on gun control. Project 21 member Niger Innis, whose family has suffered greatly from gun-related violence, decried liberal attempts to further regulate the ability of law-abiding Americans to own and use firearms. At the 2/22/13 “Black Leaders Speak Out on Gun Control” press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Niger said: “The Second Amendment is not about guns. It’s about freedom. It’s about liberty. And it’s about full humanity of decent people.”

Boy did you blow that one. It was Republicans that pushed, and passed Civil Rights Laws, starting with Lincoln's emancipation, right through Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock to enforce desegregation, to the Civil Rights Law of 1964, which got only 61% of the Dems votes, but 80% of the Repubs. Dems were in control, without overwhelming support from Republicans, it would never have passed.

Did you have to deal with any upset clients this past tax season? If you did, you might find some of these ideas useful. How do you handle a truly upset client? Listen carefully to his concerns. Don't offer a solution until you've encouraged him to tell you exactly what happened. Once he has had the opportunity to describe his situation, he will be more likely to listen to what you have to say. This is your opportunity to let him know that you understand the problem, and that your intent is to solve the problem to his satisfaction. And remember, don't get defensive. The client wants resolution, not excuses. Here are a few more tips on assisting an upset client: * Clients can get upset as a result of failed expectations, which are often the result of miscommunication. A clear explanation from you about your process often goes a long way for someone who perhaps has some misconceived ideas about your firm. * Don't get hung up on a single defensive point which you repeat several times; it'll only increase the irritation. * Don't attack his points of concern. Instead, address each point calmly and work through them. For future consideration: Develop a clear dialogue with your clients from the very beginning of your relationship. Always describe what, how, and why you are doing something for them. Clear communication up front will greatly reduce client dissatisfaction down the road. Some clients are concerned about who works on their file. Let clients know early on that for the sake of efficiency, some staff members might work on their account also. Sincerely, Arvid Mostad, President Mostad & Christensen, Inc. P.S. Watch your mail for information on the "2013 Midyear Tax Planning Letter." Order by May 31 to save 25% and receive a FREE Client Memo, "What's the latest on health care reform?" Both the "Letter" and the "Memo" will give your clients critical advice they need right now. PO Box 1709 Oak Harbor, WA 98277 Toll Free 1-800-654-1654 http://www.mostad.com

Sorry, but that is Bullshit, Taxed. I watch Fox News because it's the most balanced, and I've seen shows about EITC fraud done by them. And RACE had ZERO to do with it in those presentations. It was all about the ABUSE of the system, and that's as it should be. If certain groups are over-represented in the frauds, that is relevant in looking for SOLUTIONS, however. I totally refuse to accept the idea that it is racist to look at facts related to the crime, if those facts point to any group other than white Americans!

Sorry, but that's not exactly true. It's true that the Feds would pay for it at the start. Remember when the Feds passed a law to pay dor more police? Under Clinton, I think. But while the feds paid it all the first year or two, it then tapered off. And what happened? In most places, they then laid off the new cops. Well, in the case of Obamacare they would pay the first year, but then the Affordable Care Act provides funding to States that establish Exchanges for planning and establishment activities through 2014 and provides that the Exchange must be self-sustaining by January 1, 2015; the statute explicitly lists assessments and user fees on participating issuers as one means of securing operational funding for Exchanges. States may also use broad-based funding (e.g., general State revenues), consistent with other State or Federal laws. To ensure transparency, each Exchange must publish on its website information about its collection of payments and its administrative costs. Keep in mind, too, that once a state sets up an Exchange, they are stuck with funding it but have no idea at all how much tha cost may be. Do you know of ANY government program that did not end up costing more than 'projected'? Usually a LOT MORE.

A former Internal Revenue Service agent and manager has pleaded guilty to criminal conflict of interest charges and been convicted after admitting to opening her own tax and accounting business, which earned her $70,000 on the side while working for the IRS. Jeanne L. Gavin, 61, of Baton Rouge, La., pleaded guilty Monday before Chief U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson to exceeding authorized access to a government computer and engaging in a criminal conflict of interest. While serving as a supervisory Internal Revenue agent and group manager in the IRS’s Baton Rouge office, Gavin supervised approximately 10 revenue agents responsible for determining tax liabilities and collecting taxes for individual, partnership and corporate taxpayers. During Monday’s hearing, Gavin admitted that, while working for the IRS, she engaged in a criminal conflict of interest with her IRS employment by owning and operating a private tax and accounting business that generated over $70,000. She also admitted to using her position as an IRS manager to improperly cause subordinates to access IRS databases on over 2000 occasions for the benefit of her private tax and accounting business.

You left off the important qualifier, Jainen. The statement started “ased on materiality..." which we know means that, at this point, the UNDERPAYMENT rate is too low to affect the results. Also, they then added "However, the IRS should continue to evaluate the significance of EITC underpayments annually and ensure that underpayments are included in its annual estimate of the EITC improper payment rate if warranted.” So they are measuring it now, and plan to continue that. You are usually fairer than this, Jainen.

If you are right, they should let the states work it out, and the states that do it right will become models for other states. I live close to TN, and I know their TN-Care was a total screw-up, almost bankrupting the state while not delivering what was promised. Letting states figure it out may seem clumsy, but it is actually better than a massive Federal bureaucracy that tries to change the entire system at once, with non-accountable bureaucrats in DC having absolute power over us all. I'd love to see it, if it works. So far, though, what is coming is going to make things worse, not better.

I do not believe that. I think it's because of its abuse, regardless of WHO is getting it. The fact that it's been confirmed by IRS that there is massive EITC being fraudulently claimed for "dependents" in Mexico may seem like it's prejudice, but in truth it's not because it's Mexico, it's because it's FRAUD. And the fact that there is more such fraud in minority neighborhoods is not about prejudice, either. It's because it's abuse of honest, taxpaying citizens. The refundable education credits are subject to much less fraud, probably because there is more documentation involved before it can be claimed. As for the attitude of preparers to it, at least part of it is because it's one of the few tax credits that is mostly used by folks like us, [most of us anyway] middle income working people.

I don't drink beer, but Cheese and Bacon are critical items, for sure.

Dave, you can edit your own posts by clicking on the 'Edit' button at the bottom. I already edited your typo, something only a Moderator can do to other people's posts. But anyone can edit their own.

Glad it helped. New members often don't realize all the extra goodies that Eric has provided for us.

My opinion agrees with John's, and basically for all those reasons, but mostly because they are subject to so many restrictions, yet these salespeople sell them as a simple solution that lets the client use his own money while still sheltering it. That is, IMHO, dishonest and totally misleading. We know that the IRA laws are written around the opposite idea, that the client is to keep his hands totally off that retirement money So Self-directed IRAs are hedged around with lots of restrictions and controls, and not at all the place for an amateur to play with.

This past tax season, hundreds of thousands of Block customers found their tax returns delayed, thanks to changes in Form 8863, “Education Tax Credits,” by the Internal Revenue Service, which added extra questions to the form and required tax software to answer them with N for No and Y for Yes A large proportion of the delayed tax returns were filed by H&R Block, and Block president and CEO Bill Cobb apologized for the problems last month. A number of lawsuits were filed by Block customers, who also posted angry messages on Block’s Facebook page. The IRS had initially estimated that it would take six weeks for the affected taxpayers to receive their refunds, but it later shortened the estimate to two to four weeks. However, the delays affected Block’s business this past tax season, and the company’s stock plunged approximately 11 percent Thursday after Cobb admitted that the Kansas City-based tax prep giant processed fewer returns this year than last year. The company serviced 22 million tax prep clients in the U.S. through April 18, which was 190,000 fewer than last year, representing a 0.9 percent decline from the previous tax season. In a concession to customers affected by this past tax season’s delays, Block offered to provide them with a $25 Emerald Card gift card. The Emerald Card is Block’s own prepaid debit card brand that it offers in partnership with MasterCard.

To send a PM [private message] just click in the person's avatar [picture] and it will take you to their page. Middle choice there is "Send me a private message".

NO. Being in the business of rentals still means filing an E. Just means it's non-passive, not that it's Sch C.

And the interesting thing about Canada's 'single payer' system is that there is now a growing industry for private health care insurance. And for 'private' doctors, etc. Which, theoretically should be unnecessary under the Canada system. Here is the deal. Under the Canada Health Act, the federal government mandates and enforces the requirement that all people have free access to what are termed "medically necessary services," defined primarily as care delivered by physicians or in hospitals, and the nursing component of long term residential care. If provinces allow doctors or institutions to charge patients for medically necessary services, the federal government reduces its payments to the provinces by the amount of the prohibited charges. BUT in 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in Chaoulli v. Quebec, that the province's prohibition on private insurance for health care already insured by the provincial plan violated the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in particular the sections dealing with the right to life and security, if there were unacceptably long wait times for treatment, as was alleged in this case. The ruling has not changed the overall pattern of health insurance across Canada but has spurred on attempts to tackle the core issues of supply and demand and the impact of wait times.

Actually, FTM, while we'd love to convert you, we know we can never convince everyone. And we grant you your right to a different opinion, although we'd respect you more if you'd give facts to support your opinion rather than just attack those who do not agree with you. I, for example, gave details from a very large survey of police officers, who were overwhelmingly pro-gun owners.. Your response was not to present facts, just to say " which in my opinion is UNtrue". Nor did your POEM add anything except friction, like most of your posts. Never the less, I am going to lock it, because I do agree we've exhausted this subject. I also think the number of posts shows there was interest in the subject.

http://politi.co/ZJDfkg Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said. The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said. Yet if Capitol Hill leaders move forward with the plan, they risk being dubbed hypocrites by their political rivals and the American public. By removing themselves from a key Obamacare component, lawmakers and aides would be held to a different standard than the people who put them in office. Democrats, in particular, would take a public hammering as the traditional boosters of Obamacare. Republicans would undoubtedly attempt to shred them over any attempt to escape coverage by it, unless Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) give Democrats cover by backing it. There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it. The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said if OPM decides that the federal government doesn’t pick up “the 75 percent that they have been, then put yourself in the position of a lot of entry-level staff people who make $25,000 a year, and all of a sudden, they have a $7,000 a year health care tab? That would be devastating.” Burr added: “And that makes up probably about 30 percent of the folks that work on the Senate side. Probably a larger portion on the House side. It would drastically change whether kids would have the ability to come up here out of college.”