5confidencegames
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
LillianFaderman
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
1jesusandjohnwayne
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
AlexRosenberg
1transcendentalist
Edmund Burke 360x1000
2trap
Tad Friend 360x1000
1empireofpain
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
3paradise
3albion
2albion
Maria Popova 360x1000
storyparadox2
1defense
10abion
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
3defense
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
299
7albion
1falsewitness
2transadentilist
Storyparadox1
1lookingforthegoodwar
2gucci
499
199
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
3theleastofus
storyparadox3
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
2lafayette
1trap
Gilgamesh 360x1000
Betty Friedan 360x1000
6albion
2defense
1madoff
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
Learned Hand 360x1000
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
1confidencegames
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch1
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
5albion
8albion'
lifeinmiddlemarch2
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
4confidencegames
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
4albion
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
1gucci
1lafayette
14albion
11albion
1lauber
11632
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
399
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
Richard Posner 360x1000
9albion
1theleasofus
6confidencegames
2theleastofus
2lookingforthegoodwar
2jesusandjohnwayne
2paradise
13albion
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
1albion
2confidencegames
7confidencegames
George F Wil...360x1000
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
3confidencegames
2falsewitness
1paradide
12albion

Most Recent Posts

Retailer Can Only Deduct Perks When Redeemed

Retailer Can Only Deduct Perks When Redeemed

Accordingly, whether a customer paid something for the purchase of gas or nothing, petitioner’s obligation to redeem fuelperks! was subject to a condition precedent that could be satisfied only after the close of petitioner’s tax year. We find that petitioner’s liability for outstanding fuelperks! became fixed upon their redemption, not when the customer earned the fuelperks! as petitioner contends. We thus hold that the claimed deductions for the outstanding fuelperks liabilities do not satisfy section 461(h)(4) and section 1.461-1(a)(2), Income Tax Regs.

read more
Kent Hovind’s Battle With The IRS In Retrospect

Kent Hovind’s Battle With The IRS In Retrospect

In my post yesterday, I noted that Kent Hovind, Doctor Dino, is facing a new criminal charge related to filing a motion in defiance of an injunction.  I have been following this story for some time and thought that this might be a good point to do a round-up of the coverage I have provided so far.  You may note a little bit of repetition as in most of the posts I try to give a brief discussion of the possibly oxymoronic concept of “creation science”.  Maybe you can decide whether my understanding has been, if you will excuse the expression, evolving.

read more
Time To Let Kent Hovind Go Home?

Time To Let Kent Hovind Go Home?

This “renewed” contempt order, made at the end of the petitioner’s 10 year sentence after the government has liquidated the properties which form the basis for the 2012 injunction, creates a rebuttable presumption that this July 8, 2014 motions is retaliation against the petitioner for him exercising his constitutional right to redress and appeal in furtherance of exposing the government’s aforementioned misconduct.

read more
Pulling IRS Into Your Business Dispute Might Not Be Such A Good Idea

Pulling IRS Into Your Business Dispute Might Not Be Such A Good Idea

According to the decision, Mr. Turnoy and Mr. Shiner had an agreement to equally divide the commissions on the sale of certain life insurance policies.  The policies were issued in November 2012.  Mr. Turnoy claimed that the commissions totaled $298,119.81.  Mr. Shiner believed that there was more.  Mr. Turnoy issued a check in the amount of $149,059.91 to Mr. Shiner in December of 2012.  It doesn’t seem that rounding the half cent in his favor made Mr. Shiner happy.  He was upset about something else.

The check bore a restrictive endorsement that indicated that acceptance of it would constitute full satisfaction of the disputed debt.  Mr. Shiner was not going for that.  Mr. Shiner started a lawsuit and returned the check.  By that time Mr. Turnoy had already issued him a 1099.

read more
Failure To Withhold Does Not Excuse Failure To Pay

Failure To Withhold Does Not Excuse Failure To Pay

The main disadvantage to the “independent contractor” that is a clear benefit to the “not an employer” concerns FICA/Self-employment tax.  An employer has to match FICA, but the self-employed have to pay both the employee and employer share.  There is something that disgruntled former “independent contractors” can do about the matter if they are not afraid of burning bridges.  They can file Form 8919 to claim the FICA match your “employer” should have paid.  I have this sneaking suspicion that the IRS might not actually have the resources to chase most of the former employers, so it might not even turn out to be a bridge burner.  Still, it is not something to be done lightly

read more
Use Of Condo By Son Blows 1031 Exchange For State Tax Purposes

Use Of Condo By Son Blows 1031 Exchange For State Tax Purposes

Something that the lovers of federalism who are gutting the IRS enforcement capacity might want to consider is the effect that it will have on states, which will be more inclined to initiate audits of issues that might have been handled federally.  I’ve been noticing more of those cases. From an administrative viewpoint life would be easier, even for taxpayers, if there was only one agency that could make a determination about what your federal adjusted gross income is.

read more
New Jersey Domestic Partners Lose Estate Benefit By Not Registering

New Jersey Domestic Partners Lose Estate Benefit By Not Registering

It is quite plain that the Legislature authorized limited circumstances – emergency medical situations – in which a couple may be treated like domestic partners, even though they have not executed and filed an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership. The facts of this case do not fall within the exception to the Affidavit requirement. This commonsense provision represents a rational legislative response to challenges a couple may face when confronted with a medical emergency. No similar exigencies are present when a couple neglects to make sufficient estate planning decisions over a period of years during which they might otherwise have obtained a registered domestic partnership.

read more