if married and separated, how long til "single"

[jainen]

>>code sec. 7703 2( c ) that you refer to<<

You misread my citation. I did not refer to Section "7703 2(c )." Please look up Sections 2b and 2c, as I said .

[Bees Knees]

As BeeKnees quotes, The Tax Book can apparently serve the limited needs of the inexperienced workers in national franchise offices, a very different group than the independent practitioners here in the ATX Community. Block employees have far less control over deciding tax positions or even standards of client service.

Apparently OldJack needs a refresher tax course, as he is going alittle TOO independent from established tax law. Might I suggest taking the H&R Block Basic Income Tax Course. I believe they cover filing status in the first week.

In his 2 posts he has made no contribution of useful information and it is unlikely he ever will!

Apparently I do need to stick around this message board for awhile to contribute some counter arguments to your crazy theories.

Why is everyone so hung up with the fact that single is a default filing status? Is it because.. you may have been filing tax returns wrong for so many years?

Apparently you are the one who has been filing tax returns wrong for so many years.

Why don’t you just admit you are wrong so we can move on? The code you cite applies to HOH filing status. A married individual WITH A CHILD may be treated as unmarried and file HOH rather than MFS or MFJ. It does not give abandoned spouses without children the right to file as Single rather than MFS. Get it?

[jainen]

>>OldJack needs a refresher tax course<<

In professional discourse, we do not expect everything to be "correct" by any reasonable standard. There is a great deal of ambiguity in the tax code, and it is very worthwhile to explore offbeat positions as the legal climate changes. Remember, even the IRS only calls for a one-out-three chance that it will be upheld. And that's when actually filing a return. We can be far more aggressive on this forum.

Where would we be today if T.J. Starker hadn't insisted, seemingly in direct violation of statute, that he could complete a 1031 exchange months later, with a party that didn't even own the replacement property? A lot of "established tax law" starts out as "a little too independent."

So if OldJack can make a good argument that "considered unmarried" need not be restricted to Head of Household, I want to hear it. It may seem to violate statute, but it obviously reflects the understanding of a great many taxpayers and probably many judges too. In case you haven't noticed, the definition of marriage is changing in taxation as well as the rest of society. For something with such enormous potential impact, it is entirely appropriate for him to demand we support our own positions.

If you have any useful information to contribute, Bees Knees, we welcome it. If you just want to post personal slurs, another Internet site would serve you better.

[TAXBILLY]

Apparently OldJack needs a refresher tax course, as he is going alittle TOO independent from established tax law. Might I suggest taking the H&R Block Basic Income Tax Course. I believe they cover filing status in the first week.

Apparently I do need to stick around this message board for awhile to contribute some counter arguments to your crazy theories.

Apparently you are the one who has been filing tax returns wrong for so many years.

Why don’t you just admit you are wrong so we can move on? The code you cite applies to HOH filing status. A married individual WITH A CHILD may be treated as unmarried and file HOH rather than MFS or MFJ. It does not give abandoned spouses without children the right to file as Single rather than MFS. Get it?

IMO it is unprofessional to hurl slurs at a respected contributor to this forum. While you may disagree with his opinions it serves no purpose to disparage one of our most experienced and knowledgeable members.

taxbilly

[Pacun]

Apparently OldJack needs a refresher tax course, as he is going alittle TOO independent from established tax law. Might I suggest taking the H&R Block Basic Income Tax Course. I believe they cover filing status in the first week.

Apparently I do need to stick around this message board for awhile to contribute some counter arguments to your crazy theories.

Apparently you are the one who has been filing tax returns wrong for so many years.

Why dont you just admit you are wrong so we can move on? The code you cite applies to HOH filing status. A married individual WITH A CHILD may be treated as unmarried and file HOH rather than MFS or MFJ. It does not give abandoned spouses without children the right to file as Single rather than MFS. Get it?

Let's move on without putting people down. Arguments are always good and helps us remember the rules better.

In the past, we have lost good contributors because some people have insulted them. I hope this is not the case and we appreciate OLDJACK's contributions to this forum.

Bees Knees, you seem to be knowledgeable about taxes but let's keep the tone down. If you check my questions, OLDJACK has given me good answers and I appreciate that. I am sure you will answer my questions in the future but please let's keep it in a professional way.

[Bees Knees]

1) What needs to be said is that bees knees is still a jerk!

So let me understand this correctly. Because OldJack has been around awhile, he is entitled to hurl personal slurs at others, but anything hurled his way is unprofessional.

Is that what you all are saying?

So if OldJack can make a good argument that "considered unmarried" need not be restricted to Head of Household, I want to hear it.

I agree. However, up to this point, his code and pub citations supporting his claim have been refuted. If he is too stubborn to admit when he is wrong, then maybe he is not the idol some on this message board have made him out to be.

[schirallicpa]

wow - I certainly didn't expect this question to raise so much animosity.

I am thinking about the situation where the lady starts filing HOH because her husband leaves her and she has a child at home. What happens when the child is no longer a dependent. Then she goes back to filing joint or separate?

I was discussing this with my assistant, who happens to be British. She figures we just have too many choices:) She also posed the question - How would the IRS know. There's not a tracking on that, is there? Also, she knows the couple a little bit better than I do, and she knows that they too are foreign. She wondered if they were not married in the US to begin with, does that matter.

Just thought I'd throw another wrench in.

thanks.

[Pacun]

So let me understand this correctly. Because OldJack has been around awhile, he is entitled to hurl personal slurs at others, but anything hurled his way is unprofessional.

Is that what you all are saying?

I agree. However, up to this point, his code and pub citations supporting his claim have been refuted. If he is too stubborn to admit when he is wrong, then maybe he is not the idol some on this message board have made him out to be.

I was trying to see where you got the quotes from and I couldn't. I searched for useful and unlikely on this forum and ended with no results. If I search for contribution or information I get some hits.

[Bees Knees]

I was discussing this with my assistant, who happens to be British. She figures we just have too many choices:) She also posed the question - How would the IRS know. There's not a tracking on that, is there?

In reality, the IRS would probably never know, unless the missing husband decided to file MFS and enter your client’s SSN on his return as his spouse. As professionals, on the other hand, we are not allowed to tell a client to do something wrong simply because we know they can get away with it. In my opinion, if she was abandoned, she should hire an attorney and get some sort of legal separation order so that she can start filing as single.

[kcjenkins]

So let me understand this correctly. Because OldJack has been around awhile, he is entitled to hurl personal slurs at others, but anything hurled his way is unprofessional.

Is that what you’ all are saying?

No, his response was inspired by your attack, while your's came out of left field without any provocation. If someone is attacked personally, they do have a right to fight back, on this board. It was your unwarranted personal attack that started the fireworks.

[Bees Knees]

Sorry, but you may want to scroll through the ATX archives and re-read the thread where OldJack calls bees knees a jerk. Bees Knees did not hurl the first insult. So, according to your own rules, bees knees had a right to hurl one back.

[kcjenkins]

post a link to that thread, BK

[Pacun]

wow - I certainly didn't expect this question to raise so much animosity.

I am thinking about the situation where the lady starts filing HOH because her husband leaves her and she has a child at home. What happens when the child is no longer a dependent. Then she goes back to filing joint or separate?

I was discussing this with my assistant, who happens to be British. She figures we just have too many choices:) She also posed the question - How would the IRS know. There's not a tracking on that, is there? Also, she knows the couple a little bit better than I do, and she knows that they too are foreign. She wondered if they were not married in the US to begin with, does that matter.

Just thought I'd throw another wrench in.

thanks.

Circular 230, which includes all paid preparers, prohibits us from giving advice based on fact that the IRS might not audit the return.

The United States recognizes marriages from other countries where poligamy is not legal. The fact that they got married somewhere else doesn't make them single. What do you think they will say if one of the spouses is killed while in the US and there is money to be collected? Will they say they are single? Will the US Government accept their marriage certificate?

[Bob Hoffman]

post a link to that thread, BK

Might I suggest that a certain individual not be allowed to post. Both these folks have a long standing bug up their butt and need a time out. Bee knees please act more civilized.

[kcjenkins]

As far as I could find, the only time OldJack called him a jerk was in this thread, after B K had attacked him.

I've warned him, but don't think banning him from posting is called for at this point. That's a bit drastic.

[jainen]

>> banning him from posting <<

Maybe instead you should just close this thread, which seems to have covered the original point well enough. Bees Knees expressed his conservative point of view fairly. Perhaps his own forum is still as rough and tumble as it used to be, and he needs a bit of time to learn the tone of the ATX Community.

[Bees Knees]

post a link to that thread, BK

In his post on 19 March 2011 - 04:12 PM where he says Bees Knees is a vender, the original post was "Bees Knees is a jerk."

[schirallicpa]

Circular 230, which includes all paid preparers, prohibits us from giving advice based on fact that the IRS might not audit the return.

The United States recognizes marriages from other countries where poligamy is not legal. The fact that they got married somewhere else doesn't make them single. What do you think they will say if one of the spouses is killed while in the US and there is money to be collected? Will they say they are single? Will the US Government accept their marriage certificate?

Oh I would not give unethical advice. It was just a point that was made. And your points are well taken as well. I appreciate all the feedback on this question, but I certainly didn't mean to raise a topic that would raise so many tempers.

[jainen]

>>I since deleted everything I said<<

And obviously OldJack likewise changed what he said. So now that we are all one big happy family again, let's not start it all over with accusations. OldJack did not "slip up." He offered an unusual interpretation based on cleverly parsing the actual text of the code. But as I said, he was teasing. We do that here from time to time.

[Bees Knees]

He offered an unusual interpretation based on cleverly parsing the actual text of the code. But as I said, he was teasing. We do that here from time to time.

Yeah, sure he was teasing. I was teasing too. I didn’t really think he should go back to H&R Block school, or that his theories are crazy, or that he has been doing returns wrong for all these years….No, no, no… that was just teasing.

[JohnH]

I knew it all along, and now there's proof!

Old Jack and Bees have been stringing us along for years, posting these outrageous personal attacks just to show everybody else how NOT to carry on a conversation on a professional forum.

Now it's confirmed.

So guys, it's time to 'fess up.

Who's been playing Dan Ackroyd and which one has been imitating Jane Curtin all these years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S_XWuKpHc

[OldJack]

OK John, I will fess up. I intentionally created confusion on this post because I knew bees knees would attack me and show the kind of person that should promote his book on his own tax forum. In his post that he deleted he said he would stay around just to correct me . Of course I was wrong on my stupid position and everyone here clearly knew that so I was not worry that anyone would be misled. In the future if bees knees is still allowed to post, I will ignore him as I would anyone that posts spam.

[kcjenkins]

OK, I am going to close this thread now. Enough already. B K, trying to start up a new fight over a thread started in 2009 is a real stretch. I do not buy your argument that Jack started this fight. Chill, please. We do not need that sort of vendetta here.