kcjenkins

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. – Amendment 4 to the U.S. Constitution For years, the 4th Amendment has been whittled away. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and subsequent amendments to it — including the FISA Amendment Acts of 2008; the USA Patriot Act;National Security Agency spying; the National Defense Authorization Act; and new technology that allows government snoops to peer inside your homes, cars and beneath your clothes — have all chipped away at its very foundation. But this week, the 4th Amendment, thought so important by the Founding Fathers who had experienced the tyranny of warrantless searches and seizures by British soldiers, suffered a double deathblow. The first came on Friday in Boston, as police ordered hundreds of innocent homeowners from their homes at gunpoint and conducted warrantless, illegal searches of their homes in a hunt for a teenage bombing suspect who had killed three people. And it came in Congress on Tuesday as the House passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which allows the government to access online data.

FUNNY !!!

I was assuming TAXED was posting that as a joke. Just can not believe any financially literate person would seriously believe that much debt is sane.

He should not be paying back, his mom is the one who should be paying. He should have just paper filed and presented his proof, and he'd get his proper refund.

Usually, you will hear him/them breaking in, giving you some time to get your gun. Maybe you don't think so, but I sure think your life, as an honest hard-working, law-abiding citizen, is much more valuable than that of a criminal who is hardened enough that they would break into an occupied home. That we can not know, but two things occur to me. One, a mother rushing to save her child will usually move a lot faster than they ever moved for any other reason. When I saw, from the kitchen window my toddler grandchild run into view headed for the pool and fall in, I was there IN SECONDS. Don't know how, given my bad knees, but she barely got wet before I was there pulling her out. Two, even if, horribly, you did not get there in time, I'm certain you would still have wanted to try. Besides, as I pointed out above, it's not like the intruder is going to be in your child's room ready to shoot, before you hear him. .

JUST NOT TRUE. Clearly you did not read this post, that totally blows away your position.

CA is trying to win the race to the top, I think, Have you seen the latest? California to consider 'homeless bill of rights' SACRAMENTO, CA (KCRA/CNN) - Lawmakers are considering a law that's being called the "homeless bill of rights." The bill passed a legislative committee on Tuesday, and moves on to another committee before possibly advancing to the full state assembly. At Cesar Chavez Park, Clarence Leonard came to California just a few days ago to get away from gambling in Las Vegas. He's been spending his days at the park. "Nobody's never bothered me," he said. A bill introduced by San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano would give Leonard some protections no matter where in California he winds up. He could sit, eat, even panhandle in public places unless the city or county can provide him a place to stay and at least one year of services. "Just being homeless is not criminal. There are behaviors that are criminal that homeless people do as well as people who are not homeless," Tom Ammiano, California State Assembly, said. "We're looking more for solutions that are not punitive but rehabilitative." A lobbyist for the city of Sacramento says the bill would burden cities with new costs and legal liabilities. The bill would override many city ordinances against panhandling and loitering. Michael Champ, who works in downtown Sacramento, says it should be left up to cities. "It seems like it would be the state imposing its will on municipalities without having a way to pay for it. Municipalities, I think should have right to determine what is OK in their areas and what services to provide and the manner in which to provide them." Ammiano says the bill has gained support. He has deleted parts of it that would have let the homeless urinate in public and loiter at businesses. "We were able to reduce that opposition with the amendments that we took," he said. The bill would also create hygiene centers: places across the state for the homeless to use restrooms and even to bathe. Ammiano said he's still working to figure out exactly how to pay for hygiene centers.

If he does not file the A he loses the chance to carry it forward.

Given the way it was handled then, I think your first idea may be the best choice you have. But the client should have a copy of the return, so you could look at amending based on the client's records.

I understand totally. I still miss my "Little Bit" and keep her pic as my avatar although she's been gone three years now.

Agreed. I can see a very small "imminent danger" exception where there is strong evidence that you are about to commit a terrible act that will kill people, but even that is a very slippery slope. And if they know where you are to aim a drone at you, they also know where you are to grab you and put you on trial. It's also rather schizophrenic that people are in jail, right now, for using a legally owned gun to defend against an intruder in their own home, while the intruder who breaks in has all sorts of legal protections of his rights. For example, section 505 of the Patriot Act relaxed certification requirements for issuing National Security Letters. These are basically search warrants created by the FBI or other federal law enforcement agencies. With an NSL in hand, an FBI agent can demand banking, phone records or other information about an individual from a third party with no actual warrant. The relaxed Patriot Act standards allow issuance upon showing that the information sought is “relevant” to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism, rather than requiring specific and articulable facts that the information sought pertain to an agent of a foreign power. Who approves an NSL? “The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director” Between 2003 and 2006 the FBI issued 192,499 NSLs. How many terror-related convictions did the feds get from all of these self-issued search warrants? One. The Patriot Act also loosened the requirement for “sneak and peek” warrants. They do not require immediate disclosure of the search to the individual under investigation. Sneak-and-peek warrants allow law enforcement officers to enter a home or office, look around and leave. Agents can’t seize anything, but they can use information gathered to show probable cause for a conventional warrant. Sneak-and-peek is not limited to “terrorism” investigations, but applies to all federal crimes, including misdemeanors. In fiscal year 2008, federal courts issued 763 sneak-and peak-warrants. Only three were for terrorism cases. Sixty-five percent were used in drug investigations. We all like it when the feds get the drug dealers, but still, we need to ask ourselves just how much freedom are we willing to give up in the name of getting the bad guys.

Clearly, her only fear was of a problem with her computer, a fairly common form of mental blind spot. We need to also consider theft, fire. tornado, earthquake, tidal wave, etc. [Only slight humor, the risk really is broader than just a computer failure.]

Damn fine idea, Tom.

Gene, our 'basic" laws, as reflected by our Constitution, already covered those things you mention. Killing and stealing were illegal from day one of this country. No one here is advocating anarchy. It's the creeping power grab to take from individual citizens their sovereignty over their own lives and property that many of us fear and resent. As for me, I also resent the idea that in today's world, the actual criminals 'rights to privacy' are more protected than are the same rights of the law-abiding citizens. If they are caught with stolen goods, or even the gun used to kill someone, and the "search" was deemed to be without a warrant the evidence can not be used against them, but if the police decide to break into my home because they are searching for someone I have no right to privacy? Sure, if they tell me why they want to search, I will likely give them permission, but it should be MY RIGHT to decide that. If I say no, they should get a warrant first. Not what happens many places today.

You are so very right, Tom, that is the real question behind the whole thing. For example, let me take a different 'target' and see if it makes things clearer what many of us are worried about. Borrowing from your list: 1. Is it the sole responsibility of the Government to determine the uses of private land? 2. s it the sole responsibility of the Government to "protect" the environment and determine the uses of all land, minerals, and water in country regardless of the ownership of those assets? If these are true, then is there really such a thing anymore as "private land'? And shouldn't there be limits on what rights "the government" has over the right of the private owner? Yet government that started out with reasonable laws to protect against gross abuses that harmed all the neighboring owners has, through incremental and gradual expansion of control has now reached the point where in many areas you can not plant a tree, or remove a tree, on your own land, without getting a Permit. Nor clear a ditch, fill a low spot, build your kid a tree house, etc, etc, and soforth.

I know, just a standard reminder our friend Jainen likes us to add. LOL

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/income_collections_large.png

TR, I think that it is only the INCOME earned by the bond that is tax exempt, not the value of the bond itself. When selling the bond, normal basis and gain/loss rules would apply to the sale.

Well, I think you are overlooking one important fact, Judy. You were the Originator of the return, but ATX was the Transmitter of the return to the feds and the state, and thus they have a responsibility to keep a copy of what they transmitted.

Well, if you, or if anybody builds a house on your land, you, the land owner, own the house. If you rent some of your land, and the tenant builds a structure that is attached to the land, such as a building, when the tenant leaves the building stays and belongs to you. Now, there are several ways to do this. Mom could, or course, gift the son the money for him to build the house. But assuming the cost exceeds the gift exclusion, which depends on such factors as 'is the son married, so that the gift could be to both h/w and thus double exclusion', etc, it might be preferable to have her just build it and let him simply gain from her action. Remember, the owner of the property also owns any and all improvements to the property. This includes driveways, wells, buildings that are permanent , septic systems. As to inheritance, if she has a proper will, he can inherit whatever rights she has to the house regardless of ownership. But if you are concerned about 'basis', that's going to be based on FMV at DOD assuming she lives in the house the rest of her life. I'd STRONGLY advise you to STRONGLY ADVISE HER TO CONSULT A GOOD ATTORNEY, AND HAVE A PROPER WILL DRAWN UP, AS WELL AS A WRITTEN CONTRACT COVERING THE UNDERSTANDING OVER THE HOUSE. It's not a good idea for you to give legal advice, outside of tax law, that is.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

I actually do not believe you'd ever do more than " fantasize about it'. LOL

http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/CCH-Introduces-Axcess-Line-Cloud-Software-66435-1.html?ET=webcpa:e6998:61496a:&st=email Sorry,Tom, you can go to Accounting Today to read it, if you don't want to use the link.