SCL

I also thank jack for your super(hero) atx effort on this general chat board.

thank you. thank you.

our political views are at odds, but I totally defer to your atx insight/wisdom/advise.

the atx program seems to have substantially recovered this year.

I am a small fish...100 returns, i5 win7 6mg, stand alone.

even last year, eventually, I did not have extreme problems.

this year, so far, has been smooth.

xp dinosaurs need their own "XP PROBLEM" forum.

it would greatly reduce the "noise" for folks who have upgraded computer system problems.

okey-doke...I defer. good luck to both of you.

i am just wondering before i attempt an answer...are you an XP user?

i shouldn't have to see the atx/cch $39 come on/rip off at all (every time) before i deal with it.

hey JH...relativity/apples and oranges...you make the call.

if bill gates was working on a multi million/billion dollar problem, and he saw a $100 dollar bill lying on the ground...

would it be worth 30 seconds his time to pick it up and put it in his pocket?

probably not, but he would do it anyway.

I think there are more than one playing the atx troll game...

here, and even more so on the atx company store board.

I just downloaded the 13.3 update and now I cannot get into my software or get online to support. They won't answer their phones in ATL - been on hold for over one hour. Giving me all sorts of "Server" error messages. Nothing wrong with my server. Is their server down? I've never received "server" error messages before. Also asking me when I attempt to sign in "which account user" I want to use. This has never happened before. Cannot get on ATX Solution center - won't take any passwords. I was able to change the password and it won't take the new one. I'm ready to scream! I haven't paid 90% of my bill for the 2013 software and I'm threatening not to pay. I've had it. This is unacceptable, especially during tax season.

then kiss my grits "frustrated"...why do I think you are a one post troll?

atx SHOULD make opt out the 99% default...and opt in the 1% the choice.

I hope that she will return in some form, but I do understand why she left.

I also hope she will return.

I am curious, could you (briefly) explain your understanding why she left? (I have my own theory)

LOL witaxlady...thanks for your "dice", or any other, humorous insight.

it could just as well be...women/men, you can't live with them BUT you can't live without them.

karma can still be a bitch for any authoritarian despot...look in any window and tell me what you see.

karma for a queen bee can be a real bitch.

look in any window...tell me what you see?

andrew dice clay:

women...you can't live with them, and you can't get rid of them. (I paraphrased his punch line )

What JohnH said!!

you all should have stayed with your initial youthful, idealistic, and correct inclination...

instead of your latter day aged, cynical, and wrong point of view sell out.

"only $64 due"...good one, LOL!

yes, I am a long way from ohio and ignorant about your local tax story/requirement.

I guess I have doubt about the validity of your story...is it correct?

you could wait for janitor bob to respond...I believe he is an ohio state/local tax expert.

<<<Maybe if the IRS spent less time auditing tea party and conservative groups, they could catch more unlawful use of of the U.S. tax code by foreigners?>>>

the irs was not auditing conservative/teabagging groups. it was bogged down, slow balling, and/or delaying the review of the large number of applications and validity (there is the rub) of these conservative tax exempt organizations.

Lion, that was my exact reaction to that joke. Maybe you have to reach a certain age to get to the point you cheer on any smart comeback from an "old guy or gal"?

I'm not going to bother with criticisims about jokes. A joke is always an attempt at sharing a smile with your audience. Not all work for all people, but they are all meant in the spirit of sharing cheerfulness, so if it falls flat for me, I will ignore it and move on. Only if I think something was clearly meant to hurt someone would I object. We all need laughs in our lives. After Don died, my boys called often, just to 'check on Mom', and some of the best parts of those calls were the jokes they shared with me. Don had always loved good jokes, and hearing the boys carry on that tradition gave me a great lift in a hard time. If I can give someone else a smile now and then, I will.

SLC has been a member since the start, back in Aprill 07, and has only posted 219 posts in all those years, and most of the recent ones have been negative in tone. I hope that's not due to problems in his life. He can attack me, I'm a tough old bird, but attacking Catherine IS NOT ALLOWED.

thanks for your (in)sincere concern about my life...don't worry, it's fine.

and you??

so, please correct my opinion of your conservative (revisionist/reactionary) interpretation of history.

since 1936, in our post modern society for 77 years, you concede our "constitutional republic" has interpreted the gen welfare clause in broad terms.

go to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect $200.

the last time your strict constructionist (Madison) interpretation of "general welfare" held the absolute high ground was in 1833. by 1936 and after, our constitutional republic (LOL!) of president, congress, and supreme court has affirmed, over and over, Hamilton's broad view of "general welfare".

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position", as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.

As such, these clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.

In one letter, Thomas Jefferson asserted that “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

• James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
• Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler (1936). There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion. Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

to quote a recent objectionable post of yours in this thread...Bulls__

when in doubt and on the run, obfuscate.

what about article 1, section 8...clause one and eighteen.

sounds like an embittered republicon on the cusp of the wrong side of history...and headed toward political extinction.

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.

strict constructionists conveniently and incorrectly deny/ignore MANY parts of the constitution that are not written "in extremely limited areas" (let alone in less extreme areas of their self image)...here is a two stage thought process for your consideration.

Given - the introduction to the Constitution of the United States:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (my emphasis), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Then - Article. I. Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power

(clause one) To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States (my emphasis); but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(confirmed by clause eighteen) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Drake went down around 5 or 6pm tonight per another board. I've been going upstairs to check ACKs periodically, but actually watched a movie tonight. But relax, returns don't have to be ack'd by midnight, just transmitted.

I agree.

thanks for taking the time to express your insight!

and your undeclared point of view from your biased right wing web site is?..."unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service could make it harder than ever this year to run a small business."...or that small business "tax scammers" should not be "heavily targeted" by the irs for tax audits?

the real story..."heavily targeted" at a 1+% total tax return audit rate is still a very small % audit rate.

"Findings from a study conducted by the National Taxpayer Advocate, an internal IRS office, suggest that the tax collection agency has determined small businesses to be the most likely tax scammers, raising the propensity that they will be most heavily targeted for audits.

The IRS says that it does not base audits on factors like geographic region or employment type, but chooses audit victims according to how they score on its Discriminant Inventory Function (DIF).

“If your return is selected because of a high score under the DIF system, the potential is high that an examination of your return will result in a change to your income tax liability,” states an IRS publication.

But the National Taxpayer Advocate information shows a pretty clear relationship between the 1 percent of people the IRS audits each year: They often get paid in cash, they own small businesses and they live in wealthy parts of the Nation.

Reportedly, sole proprietors in New Carrollton, Md.; College Park, Ga.; Beverly Hills, Calif.; and Newport Beach, Calif., are in particular danger of receiving an audit this year. Those regions harbored the highest number of tax cheats in 2009, according to the study.

Americans throughout the Nation who own construction companies or real estate rental firms are also likely to come under increased IRS scrutiny."

>>No matter what designation is behind your name, none of them mean you are ethical or a person of integrity. <<

Well, E.A. at least means that I file all my required tax returns!

any ero/tax preparer(?) who can e-file tax returns needs to satisfy his own filed tax return requirement.

this year, i believe kc has retired from tax prep...god speed and more power to her.

also, her tax law & atx program involvement on the alt atx board has substantially diminished...except for her uncensored editorial comments about subjective, biased, and wrong right wing political positions.

in fact, total involvement on the alt atx board has substantially diminished.
I hope the alt atx board can survive.

anywho, so says me...the only sanctioned/censored poster by kc (as far as I can tell) with 1 warning post.