A Thomas - Switch the topic and lie, lie, lie

Subject: Re: Eliminating "constructive receipt" as an "affirmative defense"

"AK" wrote in message news:Vk5We.331043$_o.34338@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Constructive receipt occurs when a taxpayer receives an unqualified vested
> right to receive immediate payment. Something that never happens for
pension
> matching funds - until the minimum vesting requirement has been met.
What's
> so tough about that, Thomas?
> ----------------------------------------------
> " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
> with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
> (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)
>
> ak
==================================

From: "Paul A Thomas" wrote ( misc.taxes,September 15, 2005 7:57 AM)
>
> "AK" <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote
> > Constructive receipt occurs when a taxpayer receives
> > an unqualified vested right to receive immediate payment.

Thomas>
> And you had constructive receipt of your entire gross wages, yet you
freely
> elected to defer an amount that was found to be in excess of the legal
> limit.
>
> How interesting that you now claim that, when that excess amount was
> returned to you, that you didn't "realize" it.

==================================

"Paul A Thomas" <taxman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11ijatnnj757eca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > "AK" <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote
> > > Constructive receipt occurs when a taxpayer receives
> > > an unqualified vested right to receive immediate payment.

Thomas>>
> > Which you had with your gross wages, yet you freely elected to defer an
> > amount that turned out to be in excess of the legal limit (kind of like
> > speeding). Andy broke the law, and is mad as hell with the IRS because
> > they let him off the hook.

>AK
> If IRS had left me "on the hook" Paul, they would have had to explain why
> the fraudulent letter was created for IRS's Westley's file that justified
> the tax-on-nothing by claiming that I actually did receive company
matching
> money. IRS CID was kind enough to verify for me that the letter
information
> Westley had in his file was not true. Too bad Westley failed to clue-in
his
> boss, Ms. Gold, about the game. So she blew his cover that had been
created
> (Westley claimed Section 6103 was the reason I was never told about the
> claim IRS was making that I had "constructive receipt" of match money) to
> prevent me knowing what the justification for the tax-on-nothing was. No,
> IRS did not want to go to court and see all the games they were playing
> being laid out as public information. I would have gladly paid whatever
tax
> there was on whatever money was improperly tax deferred because of my
> employer's error --- if the truth of the scam had been looked at. Who were
> the beneficiaries of the match money they wanted to tax me for (along with
> others who also never qualified for match money)? Certainly the company,
and
> maybe individuals at the company (the money could be taken off the books -
> if someone else paid the tax for "receipt" of the money). And possibly,
> just possibly, could some folk at IRS were cashing in on this "invisible"
> money the company was keeping, but others were being asked to pay the
taxes
> for?? No, IRS did not want the court to see what the tax-on-nothing was
all
> about. Did I get a "good deal" for all the grief IRS caused by a non-event
> over a two year period of IRS faking their position and threatening? No
> Paul - I paid dearly for their crooked games. Paying some small amount of
> tax because of my employer's misinformation was never the issue. But you
> know that, you vile JERK. If we had gone to court, some IRS people might
> have had to join the "private sector." Treasury wouldn't let that happen.
>
> ak
==================================

Paul" <TaxMan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11ijpndr9v2a568@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AK > >
> > If IRS had left me "on the hook" Paul,

Thomas >
> What? You would have paid the tax on YOUR contribution in excess of what
> the law allowed?
>
> The hell you say.

AK> >
> > I paid dearly for their crooked games.

Thomas >
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. How much tax-defered(sic) gains have those excess
> contributions earned you over the years? Do your fellow employees (you
> remember them, the "little people") who weren't allowed by the employer to
> make contributions in excess of the legal limit know how you have
> "suffered"?

AK > >
> > If we had gone to court,

Thomas>
> If you had gone to court Andy, you would have lost. YOU deferred MORE
than
> the LEGAL limit. YOU broke the law.
>
> The court can only use the law to make a determination, not your
stupidity.
> The law was not on your side.

==================================

AK > >
> > If IRS had left me "on the hook" Paul,

> What? You would have paid the tax on YOUR contribution in excess of what
> the law allowed?
>
> The hell you say.

Yes I do say. Any rational billing, with a reasonable explanation, would be
paid. When the majority of the bill was a tax on money that I was never
qualified to receive, and I received a well practiced stone-wall for an
"explanation," it guaranteed a challenge until there was a legitimate and
legal invoice. At that point, someone (or ones) at IRS & companyX decided to
invent a story that I did receive taxable matching money and CID had to dig
out the truth. Criminal procedures should have followed the CID
investigation, but instead IRS backed out. Get it straight, jerk Thomas. I
pay all tax bills where there is a legitimate basis for the invoice. In this
case, the employer should have picked up any penalty. But creating "income"
when there was none should not take two years to fully resolve, and those at
IRS responsible for wasting peoples time and taxpayer funding to pursue such
folly should face disciplinary action. The "team player" conspiracies at IRS
need to be stopped, and good business practice with discipline needs to be
followed.

AK > >
> > I paid dearly for their crooked games.

Thomas >
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah - decency and honesty don't mean a thing to Paul Thomas. How much
Thomas can soak a client for is all the really matters to you, Paul. Right?

Thomas >
>How much tax-defered(sic) gains have those excess
> contributions earned you over the years? Do your fellow employees (you
> remember them, the "little people") who weren't allowed by the employer to
> make contributions in excess of the legal limit know how you have
> "suffered"?

No, but all of those 19 other employees (so I was told) that faced the same
tax-on-nothing scam benefited with refunds thanks to me. It would have been
much easier for me, if I had had the right to get the other people's names
so the ridiculous tax-on-nothing could have been attacked through a group
action. Of course, good old Section 6103 protected the company and IRS from
disclosing the names of the others affected by this "interpretation" for
non-vested ex-employees. Amazing how a law enacted to protect taxpayers gets
turned around by IRS to the disadvantage of taxpayers. IRS really knows how
to do that.

AK> >
> > If we had gone to court,

Thomas>
> If you had gone to court Andy, you would have lost.
> YOU deferred MORE than
> the LEGAL limit. YOU broke the law.

I broke no law, you two-bit liar. I followed everything as I was told by
CPAs at the company (who published the company policy) I could do, and was
certainly willing to accept my responsibilities for correcting their
errors - as long as the company picked up their share of the responsibility
and the tax on the money they kept and benefited from. You are just tossing
out your slanderous lies again Thomas. You are a vile, amoral excuse for
human life Paul Thomas.

Thomas>
> The court can only use the law to make a determination,
> not your stupidity.
> The law was not on your side.

Wrong, Thomas! The law was clear that someone cannot be taxed for "income"
on money that they were never qualified to receive. You lie again, Thomas.
Paul Thomas, you are a vile, amoral excuse for human life.

----------------------------------------------
" Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
(Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

ak


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IRSs tax-on-nothing game
    ... You would have paid the tax on YOUR contribution in excess of what ... someone at IRS & companyX decided to ... Yeah - decency and honesty don't mean a thing to Paul Thomas. ... Amazing how a law enacted to protect taxpayers gets ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: OT: Would the IRS let us get away with this?
    ... could NOT get away with Thomas'' bare-faced defiance of the law. ... talk doesn't affect the votes of Thomas, ... The IRS reference is embedded in the article's revealing that Thomas ... contain the words IRS, fool. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: i wonder if well ever get a W2 from arrow trucking...
    ... obligated to send you one under penalty of law. ... But I am also under the opinion that that may not happen in the time ... But before I spent that kind of money I'd call the IRS, not name and number you called and tell them the situation and ask them what to do. ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: OT: Would the IRS let us get away with this?
    ... could NOT get away with Thomas'' bare-faced defiance of the law. ... join the growing chorus demanding that Thomas ... The issue is a member of the judiciary not reporting that his wife ... The IRS reference is embedded in the article's revealing that Thomas ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: WHEW, dang, the dog rolled in hopeandchange again
    ... :> definitely known that he was self-employed and owed the money. ... Generally speaking the IRS cannot ... IIRC Geithner was ... By law he didn't have to, ...
    (sci.military.naval)