JohnH

I had completely forgotten about our TV antenna. Ours was mounted on a long rusty pole which extended down to the ground beside our front porch. When we changed channels, one of us would run out on the porch and turn the pole while someone inside shouted: "Keep turning. More. More. Whoah, back a little. Stop right there - that's as good as we can get it!"

My daughter asked me that one time when she was a youngster. I told her that back before we had electricity, we had to watch TV by candlelight.

How about "ice box" to describe a refrigerator?

I just completed an audit about 4 months ago in which constructive dividends were a significant issue for 2006 & 2007. The auditor did treat them as Qualified Dividends. As long as the ownership period is met and the other elements for qualifying dividends are present, it doesn't matter if they are constructive dividends. In my case, the taxpayer and his corporation combined probably paid less tax on the income than would have been paid had it been received as salary/wages, even after taking into account the loss of the deduction by the corp.

Yes, you are (of course) correct as usual. I shouldn't criticize them for adhering to their contract. But as of tomorrow we're changing roles. I'm the landowner and they are the workers, and they're fired.

I'm posting this as a public service for anyone on this forum who uses a mini-storage company and especially anyone who has clients who use them. It's also a duplicate of a post I'm putting on other forums. I've been dealing with the same company for 16 years, now owned by a national chain. I learned today that the unit I'm renting for $128 per month now rents for $80 per month, but of course these jerks didn't notify me of that fact - I had to pry it out of them. They prefer to gouge their long-term customers because they think the customer won't go to the trouble to move or won't bother to ask. I'm changing storage companies soon, and in keeping with a PROMISE I MADE TO THEM TODAY, I'm telling everyone know about the shabby way they treat their loyal customers. So if you use a mini-storage company or if you have any clients who do, you should encourage them to ask questions and compare prices. I'm sure this is related to the current state of the economy, but there's simply no excuse for gouging loyal customers in this manner. I won't name the company, but I'd suggest holding their feet to the fire no matter what company you may be dealing with. Be sure to pass this info along to your clients - you'll be doing them a favor (unless you have one of the guilty parties as a client). Rant over; promise kept.

You're right, which I believe can be simplified to "NO". (And THAT is something I will sign if asked.)

I agree with jainen, but with a slight twist. If you contact the IRS with the client on the phone, they will almost always discuss any issue with you in depth. My preferred method of contacting IRS is to verify with the client a time when they will be available & then call the IRS & put the phone on speaker while I do something else. When IRS comes on the line I explain that I need to put them on hold while I conference the client in. I then call the client, conference them into the call, and off we go. It's easy, quick, and no paperwork involved. Oftentimes the problem is solved, but at the least it gives us an immediate opportunity to gain additional time to work on the problem. I've never had but one agent to object to my using this approach - I wouldn't have wanted to deal with an agent with that type of attitude anyhow, so I just told them to forget it and I called right back & got another one with some common sense.

I think this helps because you have another good argument to offer (in addition to your other arguments). If there were times when they didn't have the money, then you're basically acknowledging that they illegally spent the trust fund money. If they always had the money on hand but failed to send it in due to an unintentional oversight, then you would add to your letter a comment to the effect that you can show that the money was in the bank available to pay the taxes, thus demonstrating there was no effort or intent to divert trust fund taxes for unauthorized purposes. It should actually help in your effort to get any penalties abated based on compassionate reasons. BTW, I think you should forget the interest because it's statutory. I'd just go ahead and pay it while concentrating on getting the penalties abated.

Thanks Eric. It looks great. We appreciate all your efforts. What's the financial picture like? Seems to me it's been a while since any of us mentioned that we need to click on the "Donate" button to keep things humming along. Come to think of it, what happened to the "Donate" buton?

I got an email today saying they would start shipping next week. (no date, just "next week". ) But since Thanksgiving is also next week, I'm assuming they mean Mon or Tues. The email also says it will run on XP, Vista, and Win 7. I assume everybody else got the same message. I'm looking forward to seeing the comments from you earlybirds so I can begin deciding whether to buy in December or wait until the first or second week of January.

Very interesting discussion. I may have to eat these words some day because it would be too financially painful to "Just Say No", but I haven't yet seen anything on this thread (or on any forums I have read) that I would sign.

I don't think muckracking financial writers should be attaching Obama's name to this problem. They should leave this task to the professional muckrackers when election time rolls around - that's when it will be most effective and hopefully benefit the country the most. And for REAL tax cuts that definitely don't have to be repaid, it would be helpful to point out that since 2003, each and every person having taxable income has saved a MINIMUM of $300 per year in taxes because the Bush tax cuts lowered the first tier from 15% to 10%. And they will continue saving a minimum of $300 per year as long as they live (thanks to the Bush tax cuts) unless someone in Washington decides they know better what to do with our money and begins to steal it back.

Sounds a little odd to me, but one never knows. This agency might be able to provide some guidance on your questions... http://www.mhp.net/index.php

That's interesting. Looks like I may as well plan to lose a client or two if this is really a requirement going forward, because I don't intend to sign any such letter for any lender.

The loan officer is an idiot and needs to go back to taxicab driving or whatever similar work he did before the bank made the mistake of hiring him. I think the only answer you can give him is "I can't make that assurance about my own business, much less somebody else's." (With the appropriate apologies to your client, of course). Why doesn't he just ask you to co-sign the loan for your client and be done with it? Or at least be honest and require you to provide the name of your E&O provider, since that's what he's trying to use to shore up his lending decision just in case the loan defaults. I just finished a refinance on my personal residence and I was glad to see the lender was being as careful as they are, but they did ask some pretty stupid questions and make some downright ridiculous demands for info. Oddly enough, the pendulum has swung very far on the side of conservative underwriting for low-risk loans, even though the standards are still pretty loose for high-risk borrowers who are overextended. This is a strange time in the lending business.

egg sell ant egg sample

Yeah, right. I rate him right up there with Jimmy Carter on how well he understands the the threat from a nihilistic Islamic fundamentalist ideology. And so far it appears he's capable of equalling or exceeding Carter's ability to facilitate its expansion. But he isn't alone - there are plenty of people in the US and around the world who continue to bury their heads in the sand.

Not surprising, since he can't even bring himself to call domestic terrorism what it is when the facts are right there in front of him.

I wouldn't describe it as building Democracy in Afghanistan - I'd call it a serious effort of "Whak-A-Mole" in Afghanistan.

Your client isn't telling you the truth - at the least he's playing fast & loose with the facts for some reason. I don't believe half of what he claims the auditor said to him. Possibly the questions about how you were paid has little to do with you but are part of a larger interest in how the guy pays all his bills. Maybe he's being quizzed about some things he doesn't want to tell you or the auditor about and he's trying to stir something up in hopes the REAL problem will go away. (I'm thinking possibly there's more to the gambling issue than you know, and he's talking to you about the depreciation as a smoke screen, but this is pure speculation. Maybe because I've dealt with a few clients like this before, as have most of us).

I hope he has a gambling diary or log.

I'd opt for meeting with them in the conference room. Once you discuss things with the auditor, you can excuse yourself and go get anything he/she requests, if needed. If nobody told you what to bring to the meeting, then there's no reason to expect you to have it there. Incidentally, if the auditor actually said (s)he didn't think you asked enough questions, how could (s)he have any opinion on the subject until (s)he asks you what you did ask?

Yes, exactly right. I'll bet there will be at least one extension of the deadline - at least a year and maybe more.

And there's plenty of time for there to be all sorts of extensions and modifications of the deadline. (And for me, plenty of time to decide whether to accelerate that retirement date)