Re: Maybe Paul Thomas should study up on mixing drinks and get off the straight hard stuff ?
- From: "ak" <nomail@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:36:21 GMT
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascpapc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> "ak" <nomail@xxxxxxx> wrote
>>> Why thanks Andy, but I abhor martinis.
>> It figures that you wouldn't want to dilute the
>> hard liquor with a fortified wine.
> Again, it does not surprise me that you - of all people - know how to make
> a martini.
> "The VCR addressed several operational defects in the
> pension plan for taxable years 1991 through 1994.
Yes Paul, that secret company VCR, as written under IRS's unofficial
direction, did address several defects. It also ignored the basic - court
tested - law that says taxes cannot be assessed just because someone is
entitled to received income.
['Income' within the meaning of I.R.C. section 61a carries with it a general
requirement of 'realization'. HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112, 115-16
(1940) [finding for a cash basis taxpayer that 'realization of income is the
taxable event rather than the mere acquisition of the right to receive
it.']; accord GETTY V. COMMISSIONER, 913 F.2d 1490 (9th Cir. 1990)(equating
income to 'accessions to wealth received by a taxpayer'). 'Realization'
occurs when a taxpayer has fully enjoyed the benefit of the economic gain
represented by a right to receive income.]
IRS tried to gloss over the law by making general claims such as "we are
just treating your position as if it would have been if no mistakes were
made". It sounded good, but simply was not true. In my case, IRS had to
admit they were not really treating my position as if there had been no
mistake, but it took a long time and much effort to even get IRS to present
their real "case". Once IRS made its claim, they then turned on the
stonewall machine, fueled by IRS interpretations of TITLE 26 - INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE -- Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration - CHAPTER 61 -
INFORMATION AND RETURNS - Subchapter B - Miscellaneous Provisions -- Sec.
6103: "Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information".
And when I complained to Treasury via my Congressman, IRS turned me over to
a local "problem resolution" person. However, the problem resolution person
works for Treasury, and could get fired or transferred if she dared cause
trouble for the "national" folks within "the service" (IRS, that is). Ms.
Baker was pitiful - scared stiff of her employer, IRS, and what they would
do to here if she didn't support the IRS/national position. There was no way
she could "resolve" anything honestly, and keep her job. (What a place to
And this whole system is fueled by our tax dollars! As long as Treasury is
allowed to "police" IRS, the problem resolution person has little chance of
fairly and objectively reviewing problems associated with IRS conduct. Even
if she is not directly under IRS, she is still part of the same chain as IRS
is under. And Treasury takes care of its IRS agency just like a mother looks
after their child. (TIGTA, independent? Get serious!)
Section 6103 was written by Congress to protect the taxpaying public from an
IRS that could, and had been known to, ruin people's reputations by
"disclosing" that they were under investigation, and thereby punish them for
challenging IRS - even in cases where the taxpayer was totally in the right.
IRS now uses 6103 to avoid giving answers when the truthful answers would
not support their position. The "Confidentiality and Disclosure of Returns
and Return Information" law is being used by IRS to conceal information that
would support taxpayer positions. This is not what the law was intended to
do, and I believe that the way IRS misuses this law needs to be changed.
Sadly, it's obvious that President Bush's tax reform panel was just a
campaign gimmick. And little Paul Thomas can cheer each time the complex tax
law system and the untouchable IRS make it tougher to figure out our taxes
and leave more loopholes for Paul to show to those willing to pay his price.
What a pathetic system that creates GNP-draining jobs for disgusting
- Re: go sulk elsewhere Andy
- From: Paul A. Thomas
- Re: go sulk elsewhere Andy
- Prev by Date: Re: Unmarried, living together, with child. How to file?
- Next by Date: Re: Basic query about deduction
- Previous by thread: Re: The facts are not what Andy wants you to believe
- Next by thread: Re: go sulk elsewhere Andy