• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Another Obama Legacy?

greybeard

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
19,301
Reaction score
19
Location
Cleveland Tx
Quiet You!! Don't you realize how many snowflakes that allegations like this is causing to melt?
Next think you know, between this and Sky's thread, there'll be floods going on all over the place..
 

boondocks

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
0
Location
Upstate NY
Take a look at who has been investigating and breaking this story. NYT, same outfit that broke the story on the whole "emails" thing. Just wanted to point that out, since they are sometimes attacked on CT.
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
I'm glad they did. I don't know where this will go but if I was one of these farmers I'd be really pizzed. The way I understood it is the IRS is after the taxes on these from the farmers even though these profits were stolen from them and they never benefited. If this is right, this is just wrong. I watched a lady lose her business because of something similar where her bookkeeper - a private contractor not an employee - embezzled all the tax money and the IRS held her responsible. I found that really unsettling because had the tax code not been so complicated she would have never had to hire and trust a bookkeeper. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this.
 

boondocks

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
0
Location
Upstate NY
Jogeephus":33xvygin said:
I'm glad they did. I don't know where this will go but if I was one of these farmers I'd be really pizzed. The way I understood it is the IRS is after the taxes on these from the farmers even though these profits were stolen from them and they never benefited. If this is right, this is just wrong. I watched a lady lose her business because of something similar where her bookkeeper - a private contractor not an employee - embezzled all the tax money and the IRS held her responsible. I found that really unsettling because had the tax code not been so complicated she would have never had to hire and trust a bookkeeper. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this.

I'm not a tax expert but my general understanding is that the buck always stops with the person/entity owing the tax. That's why there's a long history of musicians (Willie Nelson, Springsteen, many others) having to work for years essentially for "free," just to pay off back taxes their managers didn't pay (or out-and-out stole). To me, that usually makes sense: it incentivizes the taxpayer to make sure they're hiring good people and paying attention. Otherwise, you and I have to pay more because others weren't taking sufficient care/responsibility. But yes, at the margins it does result in some iniquity
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
boondocks":5gzc8g3t said:
Jogeephus":5gzc8g3t said:
I'm glad they did. I don't know where this will go but if I was one of these farmers I'd be really pizzed. The way I understood it is the IRS is after the taxes on these from the farmers even though these profits were stolen from them and they never benefited. If this is right, this is just wrong. I watched a lady lose her business because of something similar where her bookkeeper - a private contractor not an employee - embezzled all the tax money and the IRS held her responsible. I found that really unsettling because had the tax code not been so complicated she would have never had to hire and trust a bookkeeper. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this.

I'm not a tax expert but my general understanding is that the buck always stops with the person/entity owing the tax. That's why there's a long history of musicians (Willie Nelson, Springsteen, many others) having to work for years essentially for "free," just to pay off back taxes their managers didn't pay (or out-and-out stole). To me, that usually makes sense: it incentivizes the taxpayer to make sure they're hiring good people and paying attention. Otherwise, you and I have to pay more because others weren't taking sufficient care/responsibility. But yes, at the margins it does result in some iniquity

I agree but with the tax code being so complex many have to hire professionals to do this work for them and it was their intent to pay the taxes but these funds are stolen and the taxpayer didn't benefit in anyway. Just seems wrong for the taxpayer to be punished after they had been robbed. But what is interesting to me in this case is that it was the undercover ATF agents who didn't pay the taxes to the government yet the farmers who the government stole from are being held accountable for the profits made from stolen property the government stole. You just can't make this stuff up. Let's look at it another way, say you give your money to the IRS and an employee there steals it then, as in this case, the victimized taxpayer would still be at fault. Theoretically.

I think this is going to be interesting to see how it all plays out. I actually have a lot of faith in our courts so I hope they will employ some common sense.
 

boondocks

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
0
Location
Upstate NY
Jogeephus":1g1pq2q0 said:
I think this is going to be interesting to see how it all plays out. I actually have a lot of faith in our courts so I hope they will employ some common sense.

I would hope when it's a federal employee who steals it that Uncle Sam can't (successfully) come after you for it. But I know of instances (during the Recession, e.g.) of companies closing their doors without giving employees the notice they are required to under federal law; then, come to find out, to add insult to injury the company hadn't even been paying all the proper withholdings, etc. Last I heard, Uncle Sam still thought the now-out-of-work laborers were obligated to pay it...
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
boondocks":znqmfgch said:
Last I heard, Uncle Sam still thought the now-out-of-work laborers were obligated to pay it...

I don't doubt you one bit but to me that is just wrong because the workers never possessed the money to not withhold it from the IRS. I had an instance a while back where the DOL audited my books and found I hadn't written down a number on the first page like I had on the last page. This number made absolutely no difference in the math or the taxes owed and paid it was just a replicated number. For this error they fined me something like $50 but since they were auditing books which were several years old the 1.5% monthly interest on the fine came to something like $400. I was pizzed. Pizzed at myself for making such a simple mistake and pizzed at them by how they handled it. I called my attorney and asked if I could fire myself which he said I could. Then I called my accountant and told him what I was planning on doing. I then called the DOL and told them if they didn't wave this silly fine I'd be fired and they'd be paying me $300/week unemployment the choice was theirs. They said they needed their money. My accountant begged me not to fire myself because he said we didn't need to get into a head butting contest with the government over something as silly as principles so I heeded his advice and called my representative you got the fines and the penalties waived. Thankfully, the head of the DOL was soon replaced so I wasn't the only one they harassed.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
30,439
Reaction score
9
Location
Heart of Texas
Jogeephus":1onn5e9v said:
boondocks":1onn5e9v said:
Last I heard, Uncle Sam still thought the now-out-of-work laborers were obligated to pay it...

I don't doubt you one bit but to me that is just wrong because the workers never possessed the money to not withhold it from the IRS. I had an instance a while back where the DOL audited my books and found I hadn't written down a number on the first page like I had on the last page. This number made absolutely no difference in the math or the taxes owed and paid it was just a replicated number. For this error they fined me something like $50 but since they were auditing books which were several years old the 1.5% monthly interest on the fine came to something like $400. I was pizzed. Pizzed at myself for making such a simple mistake and pizzed at them by how they handled it. I called my attorney and asked if I could fire myself which he said I could. Then I called my accountant and told him what I was planning on doing. I then called the DOL and told them if they didn't wave this silly fine I'd be fired and they'd be paying me $300/week unemployment the choice was theirs. They said they needed their money. My accountant begged me not to fire myself because he said we didn't need to get into a head butting contest with the government over something as silly as principles so I heeded his advice and called my representative you got the fines and the penalties waived. Thankfully, the head of the DOL was soon replaced so I wasn't the only one they harassed.
Don't guess there was the chance of a snowball in he// that a gov't employee would know that first page is always Page 1 (one).
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
TexasBred":2shnlov7 said:
Don't guess there was the chance of a snowball in he// that a gov't employee would know that first page is always Page 1 (one).

I doubt this guy could count that high but he thought his job was all so important. The four hours of my time he wasted during the audit had to be justified I guess.
 

HDRider

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
5,417
Reaction score
6
Location
NE Arkansas
Jogeephus":3rg57a9v said:
TexasBred":3rg57a9v said:
Don't guess there was the chance of a snowball in he// that a gov't employee would know that first page is always Page 1 (one).

I doubt this guy could count that high but he thought his job was all so important. The four hours of my time he wasted during the audit had to be justified I guess.
Struck up a conversation with fellow sitting next to me at a bar. Turns out he was an IRS auditor. Quite proud of himself. He felt he was a true patriot, he said as much, a "service to his country", he said.

I moved.
 

greybeard

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
19,301
Reaction score
19
Location
Cleveland Tx
I read over the weekend that a new directive had been issued to re-visit the Waters of the US issue to see if it was stifling commerce in any way or form. From what I gathered, that boondoggle of a holdover from the previous regime's palace is about to bite the dust.
(where's that thumbsup icon?)
 

3waycross

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
14,448
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado
greybeard":2eqqls6d said:
I read over the weekend that a new directive had been issued to re-visit the Waters of the US issue to see if it was stifling commerce in any way or form. From what I gathered, that boondoggle of a holdover from the previous regime's palace is about to bite the dust.
(where's that thumbsup icon?)

Apparently it has not only been revisited but scrapped.....Praise the Lord.....and more to come,

The new Sec of the Interior also shytcanned the lead ban imposed on the way out the door by the Big O
 

3waycross

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
14,448
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado
boondocks":3fiqmw6q said:
Jogeephus":3fiqmw6q said:
I'm glad they did. I don't know where this will go but if I was one of these farmers I'd be really pizzed. The way I understood it is the IRS is after the taxes on these from the farmers even though these profits were stolen from them and they never benefited. If this is right, this is just wrong. I watched a lady lose her business because of something similar where her bookkeeper - a private contractor not an employee - embezzled all the tax money and the IRS held her responsible. I found that really unsettling because had the tax code not been so complicated she would have never had to hire and trust a bookkeeper. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this.

I'm not a tax expert but my general understanding is that the buck always stops with the person/entity owing the tax. That's why there's a long history of musicians (Willie Nelson, Springsteen, many others) having to work for years essentially for "free," just to pay off back taxes their managers didn't pay (or out-and-out stole). To me, that usually makes sense: it incentivizes the taxpayer to make sure they're hiring good people and paying attention. Otherwise, you and I have to pay more because others weren't taking sufficient care/responsibility. But yes, at the margins it does result in some iniquity[/quote

Apparently those same priorities don't apply to "Reverends". Al Sharpton is still walking the streets. ....And I could be wrong but didn't the Big O weaponize the IRS.


Well boys that should get :cowboy: er locked down!
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
3waycross":m7v5bkor said:
boondocks":m7v5bkor said:
Jogeephus":m7v5bkor said:
I'm glad they did. I don't know where this will go but if I was one of these farmers I'd be really pizzed. The way I understood it is the IRS is after the taxes on these from the farmers even though these profits were stolen from them and they never benefited. If this is right, this is just wrong. I watched a lady lose her business because of something similar where her bookkeeper - a private contractor not an employee - embezzled all the tax money and the IRS held her responsible. I found that really unsettling because had the tax code not been so complicated she would have never had to hire and trust a bookkeeper. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this.

I'm not a tax expert but my general understanding is that the buck always stops with the person/entity owing the tax. That's why there's a long history of musicians (Willie Nelson, Springsteen, many others) having to work for years essentially for "free," just to pay off back taxes their managers didn't pay (or out-and-out stole). To me, that usually makes sense: it incentivizes the taxpayer to make sure they're hiring good people and paying attention. Otherwise, you and I have to pay more because others weren't taking sufficient care/responsibility. But yes, at the margins it does result in some iniquity[/quote

Apparently those same priorities don't apply to "Reverends". Al Sharpton is still walking the streets. ....And I could be wrong but didn't the Big O weaponize the IRS.


Well boys that should get :cowboy: er locked down!

Well with so much concern over everyone's right to self identify I'm beginning to become inclined to identify as a non-taxpaying human being and my rights matter because the constitution says something about protecting my pursuit of happiness and paying taxes makes me unhappy. I'd even be willing to turn in my O-phone if they ever give me one.
 
Top