Catherine

I actually came to this thread intending to post a link, and got side-tracked... http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/lheal/the-irs-continues-its-abuse-of-power?awesm=freedo.mw_bT

Jainen is correct that the term "property" was specifically changed here -- because even in the Declaration, the founders' generation was *already* looking ahead to the abolition of the disgusting practice of slavery (originally foisted onto the colonies by the British government, and at that time legal in 9 of the 13 colonies). John Locke and Frederic Bastiat specifically address the issue of property in their earlier writings. However, the underlying principle of property reappears in several places in the Declaration (read and find for yourselves; text is available here http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ and other places online). The federal government, in the Constitution, is specifically and purposefully NOT given any jurisdiction over the internal affairs of states except in extremely limited areas. All the "social good" practices are left to the People and the States, to deal with as they, internally, wish, through their state constitutions and state elected representatives and charitable organizations/churches. The entire purpose of the federal government was to have jurisdiction ONLY over a small number of areas that require a united front: national defense, standardization of currency, standardization of import/export, peaceful dealings with other nations, uniform bankruptcy code; plus a few areas where states (or states and federal) might squabble. There are links to a number of articles that folks may find interesting, here: http://constitutiondecoded.com/events-links-to-articles.html

Sounds about right!

Sent to me some years ago... your mileage may vary. I am passing this on to you because it has definitely worked for me. By following the simple advice I read in an article, I have finally found inner peace. The article read: "The way to achieve inner peace is to finish all the things you've started." Such simple advice. So, I looked around to see all the things I started and hadn't finished. Today I finished one bottle of red wine, a bottle of Jack Daniel's, my Prozac, a box of chocolates and a half gallon of rocky road ice-cream. You have no idea how good I feel......

For reference: Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," in its entirety: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/commonsense/text.html However, Taxed consistently refused to comprehend that this country is NOT a democracy; it is a Constitutional Republic. There is a substantial difference between the two! The Declaration of Independence (part of the "organic laws" of the country) clearly states that the sole legitimate purpose of government is to secure our rights (rights, endowed by our Creator, not separable (unalienable), not dependent upon any government or government document for existence, not dependent upon any other person to provide). That's it -- no other reason or purpose. See for yourself: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ We, as humans (and as you stated earlier, JohnH), have our own obligations to take care of the poor and infirm. My position, after years of analysis *begun from a very liberal - almost socialist - viewpoint* which changed reluctantly but wildly upon examination of hard evidence, is that it is both impossible (on a practical level) and immoral (on a personal level) to attempt to foist on to the government those tasks which belong to us as individuals. I go into this in depth in some of my writings, and will not re-create those here. In brief: Impossible because no bureaucracy can actually do the job, and the bigger the bureaucracy the _worse_ job they ultimately do (those who deserve help don't get it; those who don't deserve it, do get it); Immoral because we cannot actually out-source our own obligations -- yet act (far too often) as though we can.

TaxCPANY's advice is good -- I have one association that I do as a C-corp (their non-member dues from pool memberships push that decision), but two others that are little condo associations (8 units and 4 units). All they have in "common" is lawn mowing, snow removal, and outdoor/hallway lighting. For the little ones it's easy-peasy; they get some monthly fees, pay the electric bill, lawn/snow guys, get the fire alarm and sprinkler tested, pay for a couple of repairs. All on the lettered part. The interest on their savings account goes in the numbered part (with interest rates so low, that's next to nothing). For the folks with the pool, there is payroll and depreciation and other things that looks/feels/(and acts) more like a corporation, even putting the member/non-member fee ratio aside. Make sure to check your state requirements! Mass. has a special form for homeowner associations which is nothing like the 1120-H. And my little guys end up paying a couple bucks tax to the state on their earned interest.

Any time!

This is a super simple form for homeowner associations. The biggest thing is to get good records from the association itself. For many associations, most all their receipts annually go to paying for common area items -- roof repairs, heat and chemicals for the pool, mowing, etc. Some of them put money aside annually for reserves. All that income and all those expenses go in the lettered section. The "Gross Income (excluding exempt function income)" section is for interest, dividends (usually on the reserves), gain from sale of stuff (old riding lawnmower?) Take a look at their books, and I bet you'll find most everything goes in the top section. PM me if you need a walk-through. Catherine

that's my plan -- to re-do a couple simple and then all my more complex returns on Drake, this summer, to learn the system. By then I'll be really prepared to beta-test ATX2013 and see how it compares.

"So, it's pretty crazy. Look, we're bailing out Wall Street, we're bailing out banks, we're bailing out car companies. In fact, did you know there's a special box on your tax form this year you can check if you want a portion of your taxes to actually go to running the government?" --Jay Leno

It depends! I've taken some online classes in areas where I have not found live classes to take, and they have been both good and useful. You have to choose carefully and actually put the time in to learning. It is also less easy to bluff your way through an online class than it is to sit and snooze through a live class. I see it in meetings all the time; folks sitting in the back, asleep, or playing Monopoly or tetris on their iPad... they're not getting anything good for their time and money.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride.php This is so hysterically funny that I had tears streaming down my face as I read it. Even non-nerds should find it pretty darned amusing. For your further reading pleasure, you will note a reference to "tetrafluorohydrazine" -- this is rocket fuel. It will make more sense when you get there.

Can you ask to speak to this auditor's manager or supervisor? That is allowable in other areas of the IRS. Then either deal with the supervisor or request the case be transferred to someone with greater experience in IRS regs.

Can't go wrong with the classics.

1828 Dictionary (oldest available free online): http://1828.mshaffer.com/ http://issuu.com/minutemom/docs/spring_2013 see article starting on page 24. Some minor editing problems that do not affect readability.

I must say that I have been far less than satisfied with e-services. I frequently cannot get POAs accepted online -- and even when I can they are frequently nOT available on the computer system of whatever office I need to call to get something fixed. Even when that POA was filed online, properly, even weeks earlier, "not in this system; do you have a valid POA to fax me?" Very frustrating. Can't recall if I have ever tried the EAR successfully, either. Last time I tried again whatever it was was not eligible or something; don't recall the details. If they made the system WORK I'm sure it would get lots of use!

Hang in there, colleagues on the eastern seaboard! "Just" a windy rainstorm for most of us, but still... Lion, hope you don't lose your power and internet (again) (for long). VERY glad I got my poor maple tree pruned last week; there was a lot of dead wood up there just waiting to get busted off.

This one's for you, Joan -- from a fellow Californian, too. http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2013/05/28/karl-marx-was-a-tea-partier/?singlepage=true

Alfonzo Rachel is a talented man and I love his video commentaries (see them at PJ Media; free registration required after watching a limited number of videos). It is disgusting that this happened to him -- or anyone. Fifth Amendment: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law..." (caps added).

Whether you are left or right, you should find this "advertisement" funny. I got a real kick out of it. http://teamcoco.com/video/52648/conservotax-the-new-tax-software-for-republicans

Hi Joan -- The Progressive Party USA was founded by _Republican_ Teddy Roosevelt. Historical fact; look it up. Read the various stances of the progressives; compare and contrast with the current stances of the overall GOP, and then with the stances of the abolitionist/civil rights stances Republican Party as personified by Republican Abraham Lincoln, Republican Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and others. You will quickly see what lines up and what does not. Both major parties basically want more power to central government, as that assures their own importance and ability to profit - and to impose their own social agendas, which is not supposed to be federal jurisdiction at all (those matters are left, by the Constitution, to the states). The difference is only one of speed. Full-progressive and progressive-lite are the two flavors on the national stage. And one reason why it doesn't seem to make any difference who gets elected! As for Publius Huldah -- read her articles (linked below) on rights, the 1st Amendment. Please note the lady is a retired attorney who has studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers for decades; her scholarship is stunning in its depth and breadth. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/do-our-rights-come-from-god-the-constitution-the-supreme-court-or-congress-2/ http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/1st-amendment/ As for your assertion that women and minorities were not included and were never meant to be included -- partially true. Yet the words they used were carefully chosen to be inclusive. I have never understood why it is that the same people (general statement; not finger-pointing at you) who insist on holding the Founders and Framers to the standards we hold today, also insist we hold other contemporaneous cultures only to their own standards -- and cry that to do otherwise is racist/sexist/"culturist" and other terms. They were flawed people; there was only ever One who was not. The Declaration and Constitution are not perfect -- yet they strove as best they could. Evaluated by the standards of their day, they were prescient about rights, and set the stage for the freest and most prosperous society the world has ever seen. At the time the Constitution was written, of the 13 states, fully nine had legal ownership of slaves (eight by 1789, when the Constitution was ratified). Yet they still wrote into the document wording that was to set the stage for the abolition of slavery only twenty years later. Had Eli Whitney's cotton gin been only another decade or so delayed in invention and widespread use, the whole disgusting issue could have been resolved before "king cotton" made the fight so much more prolonged and horrific. As for the internal debates -- if you read Madison's notes on the Convention and the journals and letters of attendees, they saw the dichotomy and struggled with it personally. George Washington never bought a slave after the Declaration was written. He was given them, and did not sell them -- and took pains to keep families together. Why not free them? He didn't have the cash. Virginia, at that time, required a cash bond to be paid, sufficient to support the freed slave for the rest of their life, upon manumission. But manumitting slaves also meant they would be outside of his ability to protect. Washington didn't have that kind of money, and did feel that level of responsibility -- so he did the best he could, and freed his slaves upon his death. Jefferson, in much the same boat, could not free his slaves upon his death -- Virginia had changed the law, and that course was no longer open to him.

I have noticed an increasing trend in the last several years of letters from the IRS (and my state, too, to a lesser degree) claiming all kinds of problems that do not, in fact, exist. "Unreported sales" that were properly reported, 1099-Q distributions as taxable when used to pay education costs and so reported, etc. It's like they put their computer algorithms on super-sensitive, and then handed the results to the newest of the newbies for review. In times past, I saw 3-6 letters a year that clients received. Starting in about 2008 (after the real estate bubble burst, the economy tanked, and tax receipts plummeted), that number skyrocketed to over 30 a year. Almost all are completely specious. What hasn't been specious? Example: client claimed $X in estimated taxes, one check of which was not posted as received -- sent them to look for the check so we could dispute. Client found check -- in a folder! - they'd forgotten to send it in. Little things like that. My personal opinion is that they're demanding funds in the hopes people panic and pay, to get more dollars in the coffers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329082/At-oak-time--Carpenter-carves-functioning-watches-entirely-wood.html Working watches, gorgeously hand-carved from wood, accurate to a couple of minutes per day. Wow.

To paraphrase from "The Princess Bride" -- "This word debate, I don't think it means what you think it means." Merriam-Webster: Definition of DEBATE a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides There is no provision in that definition for screaming, hissy fits, name-calling, side-stepping issues, ignoring facts, or cutting off the other person with ad hominem attacks. So poor Ms. Maddow would be left with NOTHING to say or do. If she (or any of the other soi-disant "commentators" of the left) could/would debate the issues, either Publius Huldah or Michael Badnarik would mop the floor with her (or any of the others) in about 3 seconds.

Depends on what you need -- how user-friendly, whether it's going to be you or client using it, if you want/need control of tax payments or want them seamless, etc. Medlin Payroll (Jerry posts here sometimes) is excellent. Still has somewhat of a DOS feel (no problem & even some nostalgia for those of us who remember DOS!), easy to use, very flexible, dirt cheap. I do not recommend it to clients who are not computer-savvy, though. If you want clients to do payroll eventually (or you to do it for them but relatively painlessly), there is online SurePayroll by Paychex. I have a couple of clients who use it. I can get reports, they have access from whatever computer, all taxes get paid automatically. Some folks also think well of CFS's tax software (www.taxtools.com) but I have not tried it for myself.