kcjenkins

YOU'VE BEEN HOLDING OUT ON US, ERIC! TWINS? WHERE ARE THE PIC? WHEN WERE THEY BORN? DID I MISS YOUR POST?

OK, SEE THAT AND RAISE YOU ONE. Web Sites That Sound Dirty (But Aren't) You have to be careful when you register a domain name! It's sometimes hard to figure out what words are embedded in it if you don't capitalize things well in your advertising: Site: GotAHoe.com (Book yourself a hooker?) Is really: GoTahoe.com (Lake Tahoe Visitors Bureau) Site: PenisLand.net (Vacation spot to envy?) Is really: PenIsland.net (Sells custom pens) Site: TheRapistFinder.com (Locate a violent criminal?) Is really: TherapistFinder.com (Directory of therapists) Site: ExpertSexChange.net (Schedule reassignment surgery?) Is really: ExpertsExchange.net (Data base experts site) Site: WhorePresents.com (Gift registry for sex workers?) Is really: WhoRepresents.com (Directory of agents and who they represent) Site: PowerGenitalia.com (Battery operated toys?) Is really: PowergenItalia.com (Italian power company) Site: MolestationNursery.com (Stay away from those kids!) Is really: MoleStationNursery.com (A plant nursery in Mole Station, Australia) Site: DollarSexChange.com (For budget-minded surgeries?) Is really: DollarsExchange.com (Currency trading site) and... Site: CummingFirst.com (Oh, dear!) Is really: CummingFirst.com (Yeah, well, it's the Cumming, Georgia, First Methodist Church!)

It's not a yes or no question, Marco. IF he is insolvent both before and after the sale, which is often the case, then the gain can be excluded, But if the sale makes him solvent, then some of it may be taxable. Check out Pub 908 and Pub 5082 for details and examples.

Marco, he does have a gain, if he's taken depreciation and paid nothing on the principle, and now the seller agrees to cancel the entire debt. Pub 544 has good examples.

Or even if it does cost, protect her with MFS. Someone who's been breaking the law for years, plus does not take care of his responsibility to his child, is hardly someone who you want to reply on his word.

While there is a conversion option, I'd consider one thing, since the number is small. If you have the new employee manually enter the new clients into the 2013 program, they will get a great training in ATX, you will be on top of any problems encountered during that process, and then the new clients can be rolled over with no 'conversion problems' into the 2014 program.

IRS Finalizes Regulations on Written Tax Advice Washington, D.C. (June 11, 2014) By Michael Cohn, Editor-in-Chief, AccountingToday.com The Internal Revenue Service has issued final regulations that modify the standards governing written tax advice and update related provisions. In the regulations, the IRS pointed out that individuals subject to Circular 230 requirements must meet minimum standards of conduct with respect to written tax advice, and those who do not should be subject to disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment. In accordance with these principles, the regulations have been amended from time to time to address issues relating to tax opinions and written tax advice. The new regulations modify the rules governing written tax advice along with some related provisions of Circular 230 to ensure that practitioners meet certain standards of conduct when serving as taxpayer representatives before the IRS. The new rules also modify the consequences of failing to meet those standards, including expedited suspension provisions. In September 2012, the Treasury and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register proposing to amend Circular 230 by revising the rules governing written tax advice and related provisions, while withdrawing previously proposed amendments on state and local bond opinions. In the regulations, the IRS and the Treasury proposed to broaden the requirement for procedures to ensure compliance beyond the opinion writing and tax preparation context by requiring that an individual who is subject to Circular 230 with principal authority for overseeing a firm’s federal tax practice take reasonable steps to ensure the firm has adequate procedures in place to comply with Circular 230. The proposed regulations also sought to clarify that practitioners must exercise competence when engaged in the practice of representing taxpayers before the IRS and that the prohibition on a practitioner endorsing or otherwise negotiating any tax refund check issued to a taxpayer would apply to government payments made by any means, whether electronic or otherwise. In addition, the proposed regulations expanded the categories of violations subject to expedited proceedings to include failures to comply with a practitioner’s personal tax filing obligations that demonstrate a pattern of willful disreputable conduct and clarified the Office of Professional Responsibility’s scope of responsibility. The IRS received 19 written comments on the proposed regulations and held a public hearing in December 2012. The final regulations contain several changes in response to the feedback, while other provisions were left intact. Commenters overwhelmingly supported one part of the proposed regulations, which would do away with the detailed and often burdensome rules for “covered opinions.” The commenters agreed that the old rules contributed to overuse and misleading use of disclaimers on most practitioner communications, even when those communications did not constitute tax advice. The final regulations adopt the approach taken in the proposed regulations, eliminating the old covered opinion rules under Section 10.35 of the Tax Code and instead subjecting all written tax advice to a single standard under Section 10.37. The elimination of the collection of information requirements in the covered opinion rules in the regulations are expected to save tax practitioners both time and money, a minimum of $5,333,200, according to the IRS. The savings would come from the elimination of the provisions in the former regulations requiring practitioners to make certain disclosures in a covered opinion. The IRS estimated that about 100,000 practitioners would be required to comply with the old rules and would need an average of eight minutes each to comply, for a total burden of 13,333 hours. Like the proposed regulations, the final Section 10.37 replaces the covered opinion rules with principles to which all practitioners must adhere when rendering written advice. Specifically, it states affirmatively the standards to which a practitioner must adhere when providing written advice on a federal tax matter. Section 10.37 requires, among other things, that the practitioner base all written advice on reasonable factual and legal assumptions, exercise reasonable reliance, and consider all relevant facts that the practitioner knows or reasonably should know. A practitioner must also use reasonable efforts to identify and ascertain the facts relevant to written advice on a federal tax matter. As under the proposed regulations, the final regulations do not require that the practitioner describe in the written advice the relevant facts (including assumptions and representations), the application of the law to those facts, and the practitioner's conclusion with respect to the law and the facts. Instead, the scope of the engagement and the type and specificity of the advice sought by the client, in addition to all other appropriate facts and circumstances, will be the factors in determining the extent to which the relevant facts, application of the law to those facts, and the practitioner’s conclusion with respect to the law and the facts must be set forth in the written advice. Also, under the new regulations, unlike the old ones, the practitioner may consider these factors in determining the scope of the written advice. Further, the determination of whether a practitioner has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 10.37 will be based on all facts and circumstances, not on whether each requirement is addressed in the written advice. Several commenters were concerned that the proposed regulations did not include a requirement that the practitioner consider relevant legal authorities and relate that law to the relevant facts. While this requirement was not expressly stated in the proposed regulations, the Treasury and the IRS believed that it was implicit in the requirement that practitioners base the written advice on reasonable legal and factual assumptions. To further clarify, however, the final regulations add this requirement. Although the final regulations, unlike the former rules, do not impose a specific requirement for a practitioner to include in the written advice itself any particular piece of information or analysis, the Treasury and the IRS are encouraging practitioners to describe all relevant facts, law, analysis and assumptions under the appropriate circumstances. Some commenters requested clarification that Section 10.37 will be applied on the basis of what is reasonable under the facts and circumstances. They noted that the proposed regulations did not affirmatively provide that a practitioner should reasonably consider all facts and circumstances in determining their obligations. The Treasury and the IRS agree that practitioners should consider what is reasonable under the facts and circumstances when providing written advice. Although they believe the proposed regulations accurately reflected that principle, the regulations have been clarified to more explicitly include the requirement.

I would go ahead and include the 56, No need for a 1310 if no refund.

WOW. I did not know that. That makes it incredible.

Justina Pelletier makes tearful plea to judge, asking to go home http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/video/612/344/060914_justina_message_640.jpg?ve=1&tl=1 Justina Pelletier, the Connecticut teen taken from her family more than a year ago by Massachusetts officials after her parents took her to a hospital for help, made a tearful plea to the Bay State family court judge who holds her fate in his hands. In the 45-second, videotaped plea, first posted on a Facebook page set up by supporters of the 15-year-old, Justina is seen sitting in a chair and pleading plaintively with Massachusetts juvenile court Judge Joseph Johnston. "All I really want is to be with my family and friends," the girl says, her voice faltering at times. "You can do it. You're the one that's judging this. Please let me go home." Justina also directs her plea to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, whose state Department of Children and Families made the initial decision to commit the girl to state care on Valentine’s Day 2013 after doctors at Tufts Medical Center, which had been treating her for a rare condition, and doctors as Boston Children’s Hospital clashed over the cause of her medical problems, which included difficulty eating and walking. Justina was moved last month from the Bay State to a facility in Thompson, Conn. Her family is now somewhat closer to her, but still angry that their daughter can't come home. At Tufts, Justina had been treated for mitochondrial disease, a group of rare genetic disorders affecting cellular energy production. When Justina began experiencing some gastrointestinal problems, the Tufts doctor treating her, Dr. Mark Korson, wanted the girl to visit Dr. Alejandro Flores at Boston Children's Hospital, according to the family's attorney, Phil Moran. Flores had treated Justina in the past, Moran said, and Korson thought it beneficial for the teen to see a gastroenterologist. Justina was taken by ambulance to Boston Children's Hospital because she was in a wheelchair at the time and a heavy snowstorm was blanketing the region. To her family's surprise, she was diagnosed with somatoform disorder -- a mental condition in which a patient experiences symptoms that are real but have no physical or biological explanation. The Pelletier family rejected the new psychiatric diagnosis and wanted to bring Justina back to Tufts. After tempers flared between the Pelletiers and staff at Boston Children's, the hospital notified the state that it suspected the parents of medical child abuse. The girl was kept at Boston Children’s psychiatric ward for nearly a year before being moved to the Wayside Youth and Family Support Network facility in Framingham, Mass. In March, Johnston issued a four-page ruling blasting Pelletier’s parents for being verbally abusive and complicating efforts to bring the family together. The Pelletiers, meanwhile, have claimed the Bay State bureaucracy has been aligned against the family from the beginning. Pelletier has claimed Johnson ignored the testimony of his daughter's original doctors, who stand by the diagnosis of mitochondrial disease. Since the ordeal began, more than a year ago, the Pelletiers have only been allowed hourly visits each week with their daughter, whose condition, they say, has deteriorated. She has not attended school or church since the family lost custody of her, he said. Last week, attorneys from Liberty Counsel, which represents the Pelletier family, filed a motion with Johnston requesting that Justina be returned to her home. The Massachusetts agency indicated that it will not object to the motion, according to Liberty attorneys. “Today is a significant event for Justina and the Pelletier family,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “We believe and hope that the Pelletier family will soon be reunited,” said Staver. “After nearly 16 months of separation, Justina requires much healing - physically, emotionally, and spiritually,” said Staver. “The completion of the Plan is a very positive development and brings us almost full circle to where this process started, before DCF took custody of Justina: Tufts Medical Center is finally providing Justina’s healthcare once more,” said Staver.

Sad but true.

Atlanta (June 9, 2014) By Michael Cohn, Editor-in-Chief, AccountingToday.com A former Internal Revenue Service employee has been sentenced to four years and nine months in prison in connection with a tax fraud and identity theft scheme. Missy A. Sledge, 47, was employed for 12 years by the IRS. According to prosecutors, she worked with other criminals who would file fraudulent tax returns using the stolen identities of real taxpayers. They would then provide the Social Security numbers associated with the fraudulent returns to Sledge. If the returns were routed to her for review as part of her job, she allegedly would make sure that the fraudulent return payment was released by the IRS. The scheme also involved some tax returns that were not fraudulent. Sledge allegedly would look for large, valid tax refunds pending in the IRS computer systems, and then provide the other individuals with information needed to fraudulently change the address of those taxpayers in the IRS systems. The valid refund would then be mailed to the address controlled by the individuals working with Sledge, rather than to the taxpayers' actual addresses. The individuals working with Sledge paid her a share of the proceeds from these activities. As a result of Sledge's misconduct, a total of 60 taxpayers either had fraudulent tax returns filed or released using their social security numbers, or had valid refunds they were lawfully due redirected to criminals waiting to steal those refunds. The total loss to the government was $501,048.40, with a larger loss of $2,378,678.35 having been attempted, but rejected by the IRS before refunds were issued. Sledge's conduct continued until she was arrested at her desk at work on November 26, 2013. Sledge, has been sentenced to four years and nine months in prison to be followed by five years of supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $501,048.40. Sledge was convicted on the charges on Feb. 18, 2014, after she pleaded guilty. Prosecutors announced the sentencing last week in Atlanta. “As an IRS employee for over twelve years, Sledge reviewed suspicious returns to protect the government from being victimized by fraud,” said U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates in a statement. “Instead, she used her IRS access to victimize 60 taxpayers, and cost the government over $500,000.00 in losses. Citizens file their taxes expecting government employees to handle their returns and trust that their information will be safe. Identity theft is a growing problem, one we combat daily.” This case was investigated by the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. “The misuse of public office for private gain, especially by those employees who are entrusted with the fair and honest administration of our Nation’s tax laws, is a particularly heinous crime,” said TIGTA Inspector General J. Russell George. “In carrying out our duty to safeguard the integrity of the tax administration system, our office will continue to investigate vigorously allegations of corruption and to ensure that those responsible for misconduct are held accountable.”

If they had just created an LLC for the business, they could get an EIN for it.

I well understand that, since the practical over-rides the technically correct many times. Simple things like UI, for example, are often tied to a business EIN.

Significant difference between "No employees" and "No employees want to contribute".

Even if I download a program, I still want that CD in case I need to reinstall. Belt and suspenders? Maybe. But peace of mind has it's value.

Looks like a wonderful weekend.

The Pastor's Talk A minister gave a talk to the Lions Club on sex. When he got home, he decided he couldn't tell his prim and proper wife that he had spoken on sex, so he said he had discussed horseback riding with the members. A few days later, she ran into some men at the shopping center and they complimented her on the speech her husband had made. She said, "Yes, I heard. I was surprised about the subject matter, as he's only tried it twice. The first time he fell off, and the second time he got so sore he could hardly walk."

That one needs a "Loved it" button!

It's sick what they did to her, whether they included her in that study or not. But I'm thanking God that she is FINALLY going to be freed from her kidnappers.