tax question for accountants

Re: tax question for accountants

"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:686t3sF2s4bu6U1@mid.individual . net ...
>
> "Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
> news:2l7r1412lvstfdtebhjgrj6m4qn3ra26bl@4ax . com ...
>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:10:12 -0700, Miss Elaine Eos
>> <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote:
>>
>>>> It's more like: we're not going to allow it and you owe us another
>>>> $40,000.
>>>> CigarBaron
>>>
>>>To auditor: "You are mistaken."
>>
>> Auditor to Baron: blow me.
>> Baron (falling to knees)..... :-)
>>
>
> Auditor to Baron: blow me.
> Baron: Nurse!
>
>
The Head Nurse, of course!

--
KompuderGuy - married to a nurse ......... Hmmmmm ......... Nurse!

Re: tax question for accountants

On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:53:51 +0100, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
>news:2l7r1412lvstfdtebhjgrj6m4qn3ra26bl@4ax . com ...
>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:10:12 -0700, Miss Elaine Eos
>> <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote:
>>
>>>> It's more like: we're not going to allow it and you owe us another
>>>> $40,000.
>>>> CigarBaron
>>>
>>>To auditor: "You are mistaken."
>>
>> Auditor to Baron: blow me.
>> Baron (falling to knees)..... :-)
>>
>
>Auditor to Baron: blow me.
>Baron: Nurse!
>
>

Where's Brian M. when you need him!
CigarBaron

Re: tax question for accountants

Marc Schneiderman <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote:

>On Fri, 02 May 2008 07:44:41 -0700, Miss Elaine Eos
><Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote:
>
>>
>>One of your options is "well, Mr. Auditor, that's all very nice that you
>>think that, but I think you're wrong, and I'm taking the deduction."
>
>
>It's more like: we're not going to allow it and you owe us another
>$40,000.
>CigarBaron

You forgot the part that makes it all OK...

"Have a nice day!" ;-)

Re: tax question for accountants


"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:qq9p149e5gr8sjvnaughffjo01fd3rv8f4@4ax . com ...
> Marc Schneiderman <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 May 2008 07:44:41 -0700, Miss Elaine Eos
>><Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>One of your options is "well, Mr. Auditor, that's all very nice that you
>>>think that, but I think you're wrong, and I'm taking the deduction."
>>
>>
>>It's more like: we're not going to allow it and you owe us another
>>$40,000.
>>CigarBaron
>
> You forgot the part that makes it all OK...
>
> "Have a nice day!" ;-)

I thought that part was. "Well, you gotta ask yourself, 'Did he fire six
shots, or only five', Do you feel lucky?"

Re: tax question for accountants


"Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
news:qqko14lpdco0fprtdh6b8cpr8bfg5fvvch@4ax . com ...
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 07:44:41 -0700, Miss Elaine Eos
> <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote:
>
>>
>>One of your options is "well, Mr. Auditor, that's all very nice that you
>>think that, but I think you're wrong, and I'm taking the deduction."
>
>
> It's more like: we're not going to allow it and you owe us another
> $40,000.

Yes, the IRS has that last word (and many of the first, second and middle
words as well).

Re: tax question for accountants

In article <D94Tj.111$tM1.24@newsfe20.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:

> "Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
> news:qqko14lpdco0fprtdh6b8cpr8bfg5fvvch@4ax . com ...
> > On Fri, 02 May 2008 07:44:41 -0700, Miss Elaine Eos
> > <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>One of your options is "well, Mr. Auditor, that's all very nice that you
> >>think that, but I think you're wrong, and I'm taking the deduction."
> >
> >
> > It's more like: we're not going to allow it and you owe us another
> > $40,000.
>
> Yes, the IRS has that last word (and many of the first, second and middle
> words as well).

Actually, there was a recent decision (2000? around there, somewhere)
that, in the event of a disagreement, the onus is on the IRS to
demonstrate where the law/tax-code has been violated. Prior to that
time, while "innocent until proven guilty" was a fine concept, the IRS
had largely run amok bullying people.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Re: tax question for accountants


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-A95D4A.14014103052008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <D94Tj.111$tM1.24@newsfe20.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> "Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
>> news:qqko14lpdco0fprtdh6b8cpr8bfg5fvvch@4ax . com ...
>> > On Fri, 02 May 2008 07:44:41 -0700, Miss Elaine Eos
>> > <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>One of your options is "well, Mr. Auditor, that's all very nice that
>> >>you
>> >>think that, but I think you're wrong, and I'm taking the deduction."
>> >
>> >
>> > It's more like: we're not going to allow it and you owe us another
>> > $40,000.
>>
>> Yes, the IRS has that last word (and many of the first, second and middle
>> words as well).
>
> Actually, there was a recent decision (2000? around there, somewhere)
> that, in the event of a disagreement, the onus is on the IRS to
> demonstrate where the law/tax-code has been violated. Prior to that
> time, while "innocent until proven guilty" was a fine concept, the IRS
> had largely run amok bullying people.

Judge: "What proof do you have that this deduction is not legitimate?"

IRS Agent: "Your honor, we said so!"

Judge: (Turning to defendant) GUILTY!

Re: tax question for accountants

In article <Ge7Tj.128$tM1.105@newsfe20.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:

> > Actually, there was a recent decision (2000? around there, somewhere)
> > that, in the event of a disagreement, the onus is on the IRS to
> > demonstrate where the law/tax-code has been violated. Prior to that
> > time, while "innocent until proven guilty" was a fine concept, the IRS
> > had largely run amok bullying people.

> Judge: "What proof do you have that this deduction is not legitimate?"
>
> IRS Agent: "Your honor, we said so!"
>
> Judge: (Turning to defendant) GUILTY!

Yeah, that was pretty much the old system. Somehow, some
libertarian-type got in there & set a precedent, though. Now they have
to actually prove stuff :)

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Re: tax question for accountants

Tom S. wrote:
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-A95D4A.14014103052008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
>> In article <D94Tj.111$tM1.24@newsfe20.lga>,
>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>>
>>> "Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
>>> news:qqko14lpdco0fprtdh6b8cpr8bfg5fvvch@4ax . com ...
>>>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 07:44:41 -0700, Miss Elaine Eos
>>>> <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One of your options is "well, Mr. Auditor, that's all very nice
>>>>> that you
>>>>> think that, but I think you're wrong, and I'm taking the
>>>>> deduction."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's more like: we're not going to allow it and you owe us another
>>>> $40,000.
>>>
>>> Yes, the IRS has that last word (and many of the first, second and
>>> middle words as well).
>>
>> Actually, there was a recent decision (2000? around there,
>> somewhere) that, in the event of a disagreement, the onus is on the
>> IRS to demonstrate where the law/tax-code has been violated. Prior
>> to that time, while "innocent until proven guilty" was a fine
>> concept, the IRS had largely run amok bullying people.
>
> Judge: "What proof do you have that this deduction is not legitimate?"
>
> IRS Agent: "Your honor, we said so!"
>
> Judge: (Turning to defendant) GUILTY!

But at least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you got "Due process".
:-)

bernie




--
"Official ASC Shaman"

Re: tax question for accountants

Marc Schneiderman wrote:
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 14:14:44 GMT, "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte . net >
> wrote:
>
>> If you reasonably thik you can claim the deduction then do so. But
>> be prepared to defend your logic and also to have the deduction
>> denied if you get audited. I'm sure you're incorporated so if those
>> expenses are claimed on your corporate taxes, why would they not be
>> deductible? They can't make you take the bus.
>>
>> Paul
>
>
> I'm already in the midst of the audit and the auditor isn't allowing
> it.
> CigarBaron

He's doesn't have the final say on it however. His position can be
challenged and/or appealed. The real issue is the practical value given the
time involved versus the potential savings. It generally boils down to
negotiating points

Usually best to let them win some minor ones than turn it into a war.

bernie




--
"Official ASC Shaman"

Re: tax question for accountants

On May 2, 3:38=EF=BF=BDpm, "btorvik2" <btorv...@aol . com > wrote:
> Marc Schneiderman wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 May 2008 14:14:44 GMT, "Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte . net >
> > wrote:
>
> >> If you reasonably thik you can claim the deduction then do so. =EF=BF=
=BDBut
> >> be prepared to defend your logic and also to have the deduction
> >> denied if you get audited. =EF=BF=BDI'm sure you're incorporated so if =
those
> >> expenses are claimed on your corporate taxes, why would they not be
> >> deductible? =EF=BF=BDThey can't make you take the bus.
>
> >> Paul
>
> > I'm already in the midst of the audit and the auditor isn't allowing
> > it.
> > CigarBaron
>
> He's doesn't have the final say on it however. =EF=BF=BDHis position can b=
e
> challenged and/or appealed. =EF=BF=BDThe real issue is the practical value=
given the
> time involved versus the potential savings. =EF=BF=BDIt generally boils do=
wn to
> negotiating points
>
> Usually best to let them win some minor ones than turn it into a war.
>
> bernie
>
> --
> "Official ASC Shaman"- Hide quoted text -
>

My Tax Lawyer agrees - he always says let them win $250 to $350 .....
that was 12 years ago though. Probably more now, though I'm not in a
Marc's arena.

Good Luck Marc! Mary

Re: tax question for accountants

On Fri, 2 May 2008 21:11:37 -0700 (PDT), mary <maryapp2@aol . com >
wrote:

>
>Good Luck Marc! Mary

Thanks Mary, I think I need it.
CigarBaron
(looks bad in orange jump suits)

Re: tax question for accountants


"Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
news:vsko14t3bkjci87eu8he6asvle90nmuthd@4ax . com ...
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 21:11:37 -0700 (PDT), mary <maryapp2@aol . com >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Good Luck Marc! Mary
>
> Thanks Mary, I think I need it.
> CigarBaron
> (looks bad in orange jump suits)

Well, out here in Maricopa County, you might look better in Sheriff Joe
Arapio's pink underwear.

Just trying to help!

Re: tax question for accountants

On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:50:15 -0700, "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net >
wrote:

>
>"Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
>news:vsko14t3bkjci87eu8he6asvle90nmuthd@4ax . com ...
>> On Fri, 2 May 2008 21:11:37 -0700 (PDT), mary <maryapp2@aol . com >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Good Luck Marc! Mary
>>
>> Thanks Mary, I think I need it.
>> CigarBaron
>> (looks bad in orange jump suits)
>
>Well, out here in Maricopa County, you might look better in Sheriff Joe
>Arapio's pink underwear.
>
>Just trying to help!
>

I might be wearing a negligee...
CigarBaron
(oh, oh)

Re: tax question for accountants

Marc Schneiderman <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote:

>On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:50:15 -0700, "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
>>news:vsko14t3bkjci87eu8he6asvle90nmuthd@4ax . com ...
>>> On Fri, 2 May 2008 21:11:37 -0700 (PDT), mary <maryapp2@aol . com >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good Luck Marc! Mary
>>>
>>> Thanks Mary, I think I need it.
>>> CigarBaron
>>> (looks bad in orange jump suits)
>>
>>Well, out here in Maricopa County, you might look better in Sheriff Joe
>>Arapio's pink underwear.
>>
>>Just trying to help!
>>
>
>I might be wearing a negligee...
>CigarBaron
>(oh, oh)

You could wind up sued for negligeence. ;-)