not feeling good about this one.....

From the news:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28642237

Sorry, but I am not alright with this. A 'mistake'?? For a three year
running period? I don't know about anyone else around here, but I will
admit that on a couple of returns, I overlooked taxable income mistakenly.
In both cases, the IRS thoughtfully contacted me, and promptly, to point out
the error. I paid up.....immediately. Something here seems, at first glance,
to reek of the sense of entitlement of Wall Street types that got the nation
into a host of trouble, and runs counter to the ideals espoused by the
President-elect. Obama would be well served to reconsider this nomination,
IMO.
Tom

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...
From the news:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28642237

Sorry, but I am not alright with this. A 'mistake'?? For a three year
running period? I don't know about anyone else around here, but I will
admit that on a couple of returns, I overlooked taxable income mistakenly.
In both cases, the IRS thoughtfully contacted me, and promptly, to point
out the error. I paid up.....immediately. Something here seems, at first
glance, to reek of the sense of entitlement of Wall Street types that got
the nation into a host of trouble, and runs counter to the ideals espoused
by the President-elect. Obama would be well served to reconsider this
nomination, IMO.
Tom



I agree Tom. To make that mistake and 'claim' it was a mistake - one should
be here posting daily!

john

On Jan 14, 8:16*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
From the news:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28642237

Sorry, but I am not alright with this. A 'mistake'?? For a three year
running period? *I don't know about anyone else around here, but I will
admit that on a couple of returns, I overlooked taxable income mistakenly..
In both cases, the IRS thoughtfully contacted me, and promptly, to point out
the error. I paid up.....immediately. Something here seems, at first glance,
to reek of the sense of entitlement of Wall Street types that got the nation
into a host of trouble, and runs counter to the ideals espoused by the
President-elect. Obama would be well served to reconsider this nomination,
IMO.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

Your link didn't open, but I assume the article is similar to this
one?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html

My thoughts:
First of all, filing US taxes as an international worker is not a
simple thing. For folks at the lower end of the scale, it might be
pretty straightforward, but if your income is high enough to trigger
the 'stacking rule' and overrides certain exeptions and exclusons, you
are in a realm whrere there are few tax professionals who know the ins
and outs, and making a mistake is not unreasonable. And mistakes will
tend to be large ones...errors in assumptions about what is claimable
or what is not, rather than nickle-and-dime errors that only effect a
line item.

Secondly, he probably had a tax advisor do his taxes anyway. How many
of US go line-by-line through our tax advisors' work and check their
results? If we could do that, we'd do our own taxes.

My feeling is that, unless it could be shown that he either acted
maliciously by deliberately misfiling his taxes or instructing his tax
accountant to misfile, or else if he chose to ignore the advice of his
tax advisor who told him certain back taxes were due, then he fell
afoul of the same set of complex tax laws that many Americans struggle
with.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...
My feeling is that, unless it could be shown that he either acted
maliciously by deliberately misfiling his taxes or instructing his tax
accountant to misfile, or else if he chose to ignore the advice of his
tax advisor who told him certain back taxes were due, then he fell
afoul of the same set of complex tax laws that many Americans struggle
with.

Myron, I agree with much of what you say, except for this: when errors like
this occur, you become aware of them quickly. There is no reason for it to
take 3 years, and coincidentally the prospect of a Senate Confirmation
hearing, to rectify things. And that is the case no matter who actually
prepares your taxes.
Tom

On Jan 14, 6:30*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message

...
My feeling is that, unless it could be shown that he either acted
maliciously by deliberately misfiling his taxes or instructing his tax
accountant to misfile, or else if he chose to ignore the advice of his
tax advisor who told him certain back taxes were due, then he fell
afoul of the same set of complex tax laws that many Americans struggle
with.

Myron, I agree with much of what you say, except for this: when errors like
this occur, you become aware of them quickly. There is no reason for it to
take 3 years, and coincidentally the prospect of a Senate Confirmation
hearing, *to rectify things. And that is the case no matter who actually
prepares your taxes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

Understood, but in this case, his tax advisor said he didn't actually
owe the back taxes. If I had the IRS saying 'You owe $30,000' and my
tax consultant saying 'Actually, its their error and you don't (and
there is a mechanism in place to challenge them if it comes to that)",
I'd be tempted to hold off also.

Then, if I was suddenly tapped to be in the Presidential Cabinet, I
might want to just surrender the battle and pay the money. But until
then, I think the law allows taxpayers to challenge the IRS. The
article I linked to said upwards of HALF of all expat employees make
the same 'error' in their tax filing as he did. Hell, I might be even
making it myself....

--riverman
(or maybe not. Nominate me for a cabinet post and let's see.)

My feeling is that, unless it could be shown that he either acted
maliciously by deliberately misfiling his taxes or instructing his tax
accountant to misfile, or else if he chose to ignore the advice of his
tax advisor who told him certain back taxes were due, then he fell
afoul of the same set of complex tax laws that many Americans struggle
with.

--riverman

Fair Tax Now!!!!

john

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:40:56 -0800 (PST), riverman
wrote:

On Jan 14, 6:30*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message

...
My feeling is that, unless it could be shown that he either acted
maliciously by deliberately misfiling his taxes or instructing his tax
accountant to misfile, or else if he chose to ignore the advice of his
tax advisor who told him certain back taxes were due, then he fell
afoul of the same set of complex tax laws that many Americans struggle
with.

Myron, I agree with much of what you say, except for this: when errors like
this occur, you become aware of them quickly. There is no reason for it to
take 3 years, and coincidentally the prospect of a Senate Confirmation
hearing, *to rectify things. And that is the case no matter who actually
prepares your taxes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

Understood, but in this case, his tax advisor said he didn't actually
owe the back taxes.


Er, no. He prepared his own taxes, had them reviewed by an accountant
(I've heard it was a friend, and I've not heard them described as a "tax
advisor"). Not to mention...

If I had the IRS saying 'You owe $30,000' and my
tax consultant saying 'Actually, its their error and you don't (and
there is a mechanism in place to challenge them if it comes to that)",
I'd be tempted to hold off also.

....that the IRS had already told him he owed money, which he paid, way
back before most folks knew who Obama was (2006). For someone who wants
to be Sec. of the Treasury, you'd think he'd know how he was employed,
and that he was self-employed for tax purposes, especially since he was
doing his own taxes. If nothing else, one is tempted to wonder why he
figured that he didn't owe certain taxes that other folks owe.

As to the whole alleged "the tax advisor told me..." thing, if he had
listened to a tax advisor who told him he didn't owe SE tax when
self-employed, he's a bigger idiot than the alleged advisor.

Then, if I was suddenly tapped to be in the Presidential Cabinet, I
might want to just surrender the battle and pay the money. But until
then, I think the law allows taxpayers to challenge the IRS. The
article I linked to said upwards of HALF of all expat employees make
the same 'error' in their tax filing as he did. Hell, I might be even
making it myself....

Yeah, but half of them aren't supposed to be qualified to run the
department that oversees the very agency that he claims confused him.
Moreover, in this case, we're not talking about some arcane
sub-sub-sub-chapter of tax code that would confuse the people who wrote
it, we're talking about SE tax - he should have seen it on his W2(s) or
lack thereof.

I've heard that the IMF warns/instructs employees affected by this of
their status, but ???

--riverman
(or maybe not. Nominate me for a cabinet post and let's see.)

Is this a big deal? Who knows at this point...

HTH,
R

On Jan 14, 6:30*am, wrote:

For once I agree with you. This is an honesty issue, not a partisan
issue.

Come on guys we are not talking complex tax **** here. Anyone who does
some work or all work as a "self-employed" person has more than ample
notice that they pay both the employee AND the employer's share. Its
not some complex detail of international employment Riverman, give us
a break. And if a person does not look at every line of their return,
whether self or other prepped, they are a fool, an asshole or just
sloppy with their finances. In any case, I wouldn't want such a person
on the govt payroll making important financial decisions for the
country..

He, and lots of other "master of the universe" types think this law
and the ones on domestic help do not apply to them. ie what he did is
a common scam, and IF he had his returns prepped by someone else they
would have caught it for sure, because you do not want to get on the
IRS list of a-hole preparers.

**** him, toss him out of the boat. It will serve as a notice to more
of these schemers.

Dave

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:59:47 -0800 (PST), DaveS
wrote:

On Jan 14, 6:30*am, wrote:

For once I agree with you. This is an honesty issue, not a partisan
issue.

Come on guys we are not talking complex tax **** here. Anyone who does
some work or all work as a "self-employed" person has more than ample
notice that they pay both the employee AND the employer's share. Its
not some complex detail of international employment Riverman, give us
a break. And if a person does not look at every line of their return,
whether self or other prepped, they are a fool, an asshole or just
sloppy with their finances. In any case, I wouldn't want such a person
on the govt payroll making important financial decisions for the
country..

He, and lots of other "master of the universe" types think this law
and the ones on domestic help do not apply to them. ie what he did is
a common scam, and IF he had his returns prepped by someone else they
would have caught it for sure, because you do not want to get on the
IRS list of a-hole preparers.

Er, I didn't comment on the housekeeper issue. From what I've read, the
"domestic help" issue is a non-issue. This was not an instance of his
hiring some "illegal" for cut-rate cash wages. She was "legal" when
hired, married to an US citizen, and apparently, her status changed due
to some bureaucratic thing some time after she was hired. Given the
_apparent_ circumstances, I really don't see it as necessary that they
ask her every day if she is still "legal," which is about the only way
they would have reasonably known about the change, assuming the woman
knew herself.

HTH,
R

**** him, toss him out of the boat. It will serve as a notice to more
of these schemers.

Dave

On Jan 14, 3:55*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:59:47 -0800 (PST), DaveS
wrote:





On Jan 14, 6:30*am, wrote:

For once I agree with you. This is an honesty issue, not a partisan
issue.

Come on guys we are not talking complex tax **** here. Anyone who does
some work or all work as a "self-employed" person has more than ample
notice that they pay both the employee AND the employer's share. Its
not some complex detail of international employment Riverman, give us
a break. And if a person does not look at every line of their return,
whether self or other prepped, they are a fool, an asshole or just
sloppy with their finances. In any case, I wouldn't want such a person
on the govt payroll making important financial decisions for the
country..

He, and lots of other "master of the universe" types think this law
and the ones on domestic help do not apply to them. ie what he did is
a common scam, and IF he had his returns prepped by someone else they
would have caught it for sure, because you do not want to get on the
IRS list of a-hole preparers.

Er, I didn't comment on the housekeeper issue. *From what I've read, the
"domestic help" issue is a non-issue. *This was not an instance of his
hiring some "illegal" for cut-rate cash wages. *She was "legal" when
hired, married to an US citizen, and apparently, her status changed due
to some bureaucratic thing some time after she was hired. *Given the
_apparent_ circumstances, I really don't see it as necessary that they
ask her every day if she is still "legal," which is about the only way
they would have reasonably known about the change, assuming the woman
knew herself.

HTH,
R





**** him, toss him out of the boat. It will serve as a notice to more
of these schemers.

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well Ill assume you are right. i wasn't referring to his domestic help
issue. I was thinking of one or two of Clinton's first term nominees
who were paying help under the table. I should have made that clearer,
but then i would have had to critize a D, which is hard for me as I am
sure you will understand. :-)

Dave