Get a Clue Time
Speaking of the floods and landslides in California and elsewhere in the USA this winter, many people have faced inconsolable tragedies - lost loved onesand lost or destroyed homes.
While my heart goes out to you - I am also furiouswith you for putting yourselves into that position.
On the news, I hear nany people screaming that they warned their local or state government about these dangers near their homes. I saw one group, in La Conchita, yelling at Governor Arnold, blaming him for not having shored up the hillside above their homes.
Hey folks, wake up!
If you can't get any insurance coverage from any carrier AND you can't get any lenders to lend you money against those homes - doesn't that tell you it's too dangerous to live there?
It's not the government's responsibility to support your decision to live in a dangerous area. It's not up to your fellow taxpayers around the state or country to help fund your right to live in a lovely, but dangerous place,next to the ocean, that many taxpayers can't even afford to visit.
If you want to live in places like that - it's up to YOU and the members of YOUR community tofind or raise the funds to make it safe.
Why I am so furious with people like this?
It's not just the financial cost.
It's the fact that their decision has cost the lives of people they love.
Those deaths could have been prevented.
It was a choice.
Isn't it time to take responsibility for ourown actions? And to prevent needless deaths?
With love,
Your TaxMom.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Politics, As Usual
Recently, in a CBS.MarketWatch.com article I wrote, I made an error. Apparently, it was a big one. I mistakenly blamed IRS for press release issued by the U.S. Treasury Department.
April 9, 2004 U.S. Treasury Department Press release, ironically numbered JS-1313.
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1313.htm
The press release contained this footnote:
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation
I was under the assumption that the US Treasury Department issues press releases for IRS - since so many of them are about taxes. Apparently not. IRS does their own press releases. And they don't include political statements on them.
IRS already has a bad enough rap - they don't need me to blame them for something they didn't do. I really should have checked my facts better. In fact, my editor did ask me about it - and I told him the Treasury issued releases for IRS. So wrong. I really must check my facts better.
It seems, even though we removed the error from my article as soon as we learned of the error, other major national publications ran with the story.
So, world, please accept my apologies.
However, that doesn't change the fact that an agency of the United States government included such a partisan statement. That brings up some questions
1) Should the US Treasury Department be including that kind of political statement with their press releases?
2) Was it a political statement, or just support for the country's head of state?
3) Who in their right mind would number a press release 1313 and not expect bad luck to follow?
Let's start with the second question:
2) Was it a political statement, or just support for the country's head of state?
Let's examine the statement more closely, shall we?
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation
Yup. It's definitely political. Without question, it's a swipe at the Democratic campaign.
Ironically enough, the economy grew dramatically under a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and collapsed immediately after George Bush's shockingly pessimistic inaugural speech. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy - he said the economy would be getting worse - and precipitated one of the biggest slumps in stock market history.
I remember hearing his speech and being shocked. Immediately, I thought, oh no! People will act on this. Why did he need to say that? At his inauguration.
For Treasury to be simply supportive of the administration, the press release should have read more like:
America continues to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are taking effect.
But if it said that,...there would have been no reason to include it with the press release.
There's no reason why the US Treasury, or any department of the government can't support the policies of the admintration. In fact, they should, that's their job.
But, let's go back to the first question:
1) Should the US Treasury Department be including that kind of political statement with their press releases?
Absolutely not.
This is one of the things I find amazing about our politics. Why don't our elected officials understand?
When you are running for office, sure, you are a member of a party.
But once you get elected, you represent ALL your constituents.
You are supposed to look after the interests of all the people in your district, state, or area.
Your mandate is the good of the country - not your party.
I find it so frustrating that in all communications, on the House and Senate floor, in the media, in news articles, all legistlators are referred to by their names, their party affiliations and their state or district.
It is my opinion that once elected, they should be referred to by their names and states or districts, period. Leave the party out of it. Let everyone forget the party affiliation, including the legislator.
Frankly, being a financial kind of person, I feel that if elected officials persist in representing only the members of their party, they should not be paid by all their constituents.
Perhaps we ought to start a drive to adjust the salaries of elected officials. Those who only represent their parties should be paid a percentage of their assigned wages. They should only receive wages in proportion to the members of their party to the total registered voting population.
For instance, if they are Republican, and Republicans make up 35% of the voters in their constituency, they should receive only 35% of the budgeted salary.
This will never happen. But wouldn't it be something if it did?
Do you think it would help elected officials understand who they really represent?
Just one woman's opinion.
Eva Rosenberg
P.S. That 1313 number...well, this release did cause trouble, didn't it?
Recently, in a CBS.MarketWatch.com article I wrote, I made an error. Apparently, it was a big one. I mistakenly blamed IRS for press release issued by the U.S. Treasury Department.
April 9, 2004 U.S. Treasury Department Press release, ironically numbered JS-1313.
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1313.htm
The press release contained this footnote:
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation
I was under the assumption that the US Treasury Department issues press releases for IRS - since so many of them are about taxes. Apparently not. IRS does their own press releases. And they don't include political statements on them.
IRS already has a bad enough rap - they don't need me to blame them for something they didn't do. I really should have checked my facts better. In fact, my editor did ask me about it - and I told him the Treasury issued releases for IRS. So wrong. I really must check my facts better.
It seems, even though we removed the error from my article as soon as we learned of the error, other major national publications ran with the story.
So, world, please accept my apologies.
However, that doesn't change the fact that an agency of the United States government included such a partisan statement. That brings up some questions
1) Should the US Treasury Department be including that kind of political statement with their press releases?
2) Was it a political statement, or just support for the country's head of state?
3) Who in their right mind would number a press release 1313 and not expect bad luck to follow?
Let's start with the second question:
2) Was it a political statement, or just support for the country's head of state?
Let's examine the statement more closely, shall we?
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation
Yup. It's definitely political. Without question, it's a swipe at the Democratic campaign.
Ironically enough, the economy grew dramatically under a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and collapsed immediately after George Bush's shockingly pessimistic inaugural speech. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy - he said the economy would be getting worse - and precipitated one of the biggest slumps in stock market history.
I remember hearing his speech and being shocked. Immediately, I thought, oh no! People will act on this. Why did he need to say that? At his inauguration.
For Treasury to be simply supportive of the administration, the press release should have read more like:
America continues to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are taking effect.
But if it said that,...there would have been no reason to include it with the press release.
There's no reason why the US Treasury, or any department of the government can't support the policies of the admintration. In fact, they should, that's their job.
But, let's go back to the first question:
1) Should the US Treasury Department be including that kind of political statement with their press releases?
Absolutely not.
This is one of the things I find amazing about our politics. Why don't our elected officials understand?
When you are running for office, sure, you are a member of a party.
But once you get elected, you represent ALL your constituents.
You are supposed to look after the interests of all the people in your district, state, or area.
Your mandate is the good of the country - not your party.
I find it so frustrating that in all communications, on the House and Senate floor, in the media, in news articles, all legistlators are referred to by their names, their party affiliations and their state or district.
It is my opinion that once elected, they should be referred to by their names and states or districts, period. Leave the party out of it. Let everyone forget the party affiliation, including the legislator.
Frankly, being a financial kind of person, I feel that if elected officials persist in representing only the members of their party, they should not be paid by all their constituents.
Perhaps we ought to start a drive to adjust the salaries of elected officials. Those who only represent their parties should be paid a percentage of their assigned wages. They should only receive wages in proportion to the members of their party to the total registered voting population.
For instance, if they are Republican, and Republicans make up 35% of the voters in their constituency, they should receive only 35% of the budgeted salary.
This will never happen. But wouldn't it be something if it did?
Do you think it would help elected officials understand who they really represent?
Just one woman's opinion.
Eva Rosenberg
P.S. That 1313 number...well, this release did cause trouble, didn't it?
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
The State of the Union
Last week, President Bush delivered his State of the Union message.
Full text here
Sounds like we're in pretty good shape. People clapped a lot.
Two children were constantly targetted by the cameras. President
Bush singled out the current President of the Iraqi Governing
Council, Adnan Pachachi. I'll bet Mr. Pachachi never got this
much publicity in his life. But it was a good thing to do. We need
local support to make it possible for American troops to be able to
return home.
The President proposed one thing that I find disturbing, despite
all the applause.
"This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back
into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find
work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime
and return to prison. So tonight, I propose a four-year, $300 million
prisoner re-entry initiative to expand job training and placement
services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released
prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups. (Applause.)
America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison
open, the path ahead should lead to a better life. (Applause.) "
From the State of the Union Message
Uh, folks, did I miss something here? What are these 600,000 inmates
doing during all those years they are incarcerated? They seem to have
time to file lots of frivolous lawsuits, runs phone scams and
mail order scams from behind bars, work out and build great bodies.
Pardon me, but why can't we use fraction of the money Bush proposes
to spend - and educate them and train them while they are in prison.
I thought they were there to get rehabilitated. Why doesn't that
include job training? Why doesn't that include the three Rs?Many prisoners end up incarcerated because of their feelings of
powerlessness because they never were able to learn to read and
function in our world. HELP THEM WHILE THEY ARE THERE!
And would it hurt to teach basic etiquette? Perhaps if it starts
in the prisons, it would spread back out to society?
Seriously, though, while these folks are in prison, we have an
excellent opportunity to provide training so when the leave,
they are able to step into jobs that will support them AND be
able to interact with people who might be a little leery of them.
It takes time for all to adapt. But why not lay the groundwork
while they are IN prison? Why spend THREE HUNDRED MILLION
of our dollars, teaching them after they get out?
Heck, a condition of being accepted for parole should be that
they have succcessfully and politely completed the training.
But that's just one TaxMama's opinion....who wonders...
just who will be getting the contracts or grants to handle this
training, housing and mentoring?
Last week, President Bush delivered his State of the Union message.
Full text here
Sounds like we're in pretty good shape. People clapped a lot.
Two children were constantly targetted by the cameras. President
Bush singled out the current President of the Iraqi Governing
Council, Adnan Pachachi. I'll bet Mr. Pachachi never got this
much publicity in his life. But it was a good thing to do. We need
local support to make it possible for American troops to be able to
return home.
The President proposed one thing that I find disturbing, despite
all the applause.
"This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back
into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find
work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime
and return to prison. So tonight, I propose a four-year, $300 million
prisoner re-entry initiative to expand job training and placement
services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released
prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups. (Applause.)
America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison
open, the path ahead should lead to a better life. (Applause.) "
From the State of the Union Message
Uh, folks, did I miss something here? What are these 600,000 inmates
doing during all those years they are incarcerated? They seem to have
time to file lots of frivolous lawsuits, runs phone scams and
mail order scams from behind bars, work out and build great bodies.
Pardon me, but why can't we use fraction of the money Bush proposes
to spend - and educate them and train them while they are in prison.
I thought they were there to get rehabilitated. Why doesn't that
include job training? Why doesn't that include the three Rs?Many prisoners end up incarcerated because of their feelings of
powerlessness because they never were able to learn to read and
function in our world. HELP THEM WHILE THEY ARE THERE!
And would it hurt to teach basic etiquette? Perhaps if it starts
in the prisons, it would spread back out to society?
Seriously, though, while these folks are in prison, we have an
excellent opportunity to provide training so when the leave,
they are able to step into jobs that will support them AND be
able to interact with people who might be a little leery of them.
It takes time for all to adapt. But why not lay the groundwork
while they are IN prison? Why spend THREE HUNDRED MILLION
of our dollars, teaching them after they get out?
Heck, a condition of being accepted for parole should be that
they have succcessfully and politely completed the training.
But that's just one TaxMama's opinion....who wonders...
just who will be getting the contracts or grants to handle this
training, housing and mentoring?
Friday, April 18, 2003
Celebrating Freedom from Slavery
Suppose I came to you and offered you this holiday to
celebrate your freedom from slavery, would you want it?
First, for weeks before the holiday, the womenfolk will
scour, scrub and polish everything in the house, from
top to bottom.
They will get into all the corners, cupboards, closets.
crannies and cabinets and eliminate all crumbs, cobwebs,
and other crummy things.
Next, they'll clean all the dishes, pots and pans and
put them all away, locked securely behind doors or
hidden in pantries or covered up on top shelves.
With all the old things put away, they'll pull out a
whole other set of dishes, stored all year for just
this very occasion, and start removing a year's worth
of dust, detritus and dirt.
And now they're ready to start cooking up a storm for the
big celebration feast to come. After spending days, peeling,
paring, pounding, and polishing, they're ready for the
menfolk to step in - the evening before this celebration.
What do the menfolk do? They come along with a candle and a
feather and inspect the womenfolk's hard work. (Since the
women know they've done a good job, and their menfolk will
be disappointed and feel useless, the women are meant to hide up
to 10 tiny pieces of bread around the house. That way, the men
are heroes and feel fulfilled.)
After the inspection?
The menfolk go to their favorite easy-chairs, pick up their
newspapers, turn on their favorite sports or news shows, or
both and breathe a sigh of satisfaction for a job well done.
The womenfolk? Oh, they're still cooking for the upcoming feast.
On the night of this celebration of freedom, the men are
enthroned in their chairs at the glittering table, with lots
of pillows, so they can recline like kings. Their womenfolk
rush about serving and waiting on them hand and foot, even
to the point of bringing them a water basin so the men can wash
their delicate hands before partaking of this generous feast.
The men and boys do what? They get to spout on for hours
about how glorious is their freedom and how oppressive was
the slavery of their ancestors. They get to play hide-and-seek,
with their food, as they sate themselves on four brimming cups
of wine . They challenge each other's knowledge about slavery...
as the women continue mutely to serve them.
And when it's all done - around 1:00 a.m., if celebrated
properly, what now?
The menfolk get to toddle off to a cozy slumber, secure in
the knowledge that they conducted a grand feast and put
slavery to bed forever.
The womenfolk? Oh, they get to clean up and start all over
again for the next night - and to have the house ready for
breakfast and lunch before the 2nd major dinner feast.
So, are you eager for this celebration of the release from slavery?
We already have it.
It's called Passover.
---
© 2003 Eva Rosenberg, http://www.TaxMama.com ,
inspired by a comment from her mother.
Please feel free to pass this along to friends, with all the copyright
info intact. (I want to see how many times it comes back)
You may not publish this online, in print or e-mail newsletters
without permission. Contact taxmama@taxmama.com with 'Freedom'
in the subject line, to inquire about permissions and fees to publish.
Suppose I came to you and offered you this holiday to
celebrate your freedom from slavery, would you want it?
First, for weeks before the holiday, the womenfolk will
scour, scrub and polish everything in the house, from
top to bottom.
They will get into all the corners, cupboards, closets.
crannies and cabinets and eliminate all crumbs, cobwebs,
and other crummy things.
Next, they'll clean all the dishes, pots and pans and
put them all away, locked securely behind doors or
hidden in pantries or covered up on top shelves.
With all the old things put away, they'll pull out a
whole other set of dishes, stored all year for just
this very occasion, and start removing a year's worth
of dust, detritus and dirt.
And now they're ready to start cooking up a storm for the
big celebration feast to come. After spending days, peeling,
paring, pounding, and polishing, they're ready for the
menfolk to step in - the evening before this celebration.
What do the menfolk do? They come along with a candle and a
feather and inspect the womenfolk's hard work. (Since the
women know they've done a good job, and their menfolk will
be disappointed and feel useless, the women are meant to hide up
to 10 tiny pieces of bread around the house. That way, the men
are heroes and feel fulfilled.)
After the inspection?
The menfolk go to their favorite easy-chairs, pick up their
newspapers, turn on their favorite sports or news shows, or
both and breathe a sigh of satisfaction for a job well done.
The womenfolk? Oh, they're still cooking for the upcoming feast.
On the night of this celebration of freedom, the men are
enthroned in their chairs at the glittering table, with lots
of pillows, so they can recline like kings. Their womenfolk
rush about serving and waiting on them hand and foot, even
to the point of bringing them a water basin so the men can wash
their delicate hands before partaking of this generous feast.
The men and boys do what? They get to spout on for hours
about how glorious is their freedom and how oppressive was
the slavery of their ancestors. They get to play hide-and-seek,
with their food, as they sate themselves on four brimming cups
of wine . They challenge each other's knowledge about slavery...
as the women continue mutely to serve them.
And when it's all done - around 1:00 a.m., if celebrated
properly, what now?
The menfolk get to toddle off to a cozy slumber, secure in
the knowledge that they conducted a grand feast and put
slavery to bed forever.
The womenfolk? Oh, they get to clean up and start all over
again for the next night - and to have the house ready for
breakfast and lunch before the 2nd major dinner feast.
So, are you eager for this celebration of the release from slavery?
We already have it.
It's called Passover.
---
© 2003 Eva Rosenberg, http://www.TaxMama.com ,
inspired by a comment from her mother.
Please feel free to pass this along to friends, with all the copyright
info intact. (I want to see how many times it comes back)
You may not publish this online, in print or e-mail newsletters
without permission. Contact taxmama@taxmama.com with 'Freedom'
in the subject line, to inquire about permissions and fees to publish.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
I just read an AP article, entitled -
IRS running out of funds to go after unpaid taxes
http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/4/9/16781931.cfm
Doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy?
Maybe you can get away with not paying taxes at all, right?
Funny thing that happens when IRS doesn't have staff and time.
They take the easy way out.
What does that mean to you?
It means that if you owe tax money and IRS knows
how to find your assets, they'll just take them, if you
ignore their automated letters. (Did the reporter forget
to tell you that a whole lot of the system is automated?)
IRS knows
a) where you work (W-2s)
b) who your clients are (1099-MISCs)
c) where your money is (1099-INT, 1099-B, etc.)
d) where your home is (1098s)
e) what your driving (auto registrations)
They'll just send out levy notices on your accounts,
or garnishments on your wages.
All those short-staffed people won't be to your advantage.
The fact is, you won't be able to reach someone to help
you get off the hook - to help you stop those garnishments.
THAT's going to be the real problem with the budget shortfall.
When we need help - there won't be anyone there to HELP us!!!!!
OK, now, I'll tell you a little, tiny secret...there are special
phone lines for tax professionals to use to get help for our
clients. So, we're going to be just fine - and so will our clients.
But, you, out on your own thinking you're going to rip off the
system...well, there just won't be anyone there to help you
when you need it.
Hmmm...should I be gloating?
Is this budget cutback really designed to help provide more
income to Tax Professionals. Heck, I love it!
IRS running out of funds to go after unpaid taxes
http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/4/9/16781931.cfm
Doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy?
Maybe you can get away with not paying taxes at all, right?
Funny thing that happens when IRS doesn't have staff and time.
They take the easy way out.
What does that mean to you?
It means that if you owe tax money and IRS knows
how to find your assets, they'll just take them, if you
ignore their automated letters. (Did the reporter forget
to tell you that a whole lot of the system is automated?)
IRS knows
a) where you work (W-2s)
b) who your clients are (1099-MISCs)
c) where your money is (1099-INT, 1099-B, etc.)
d) where your home is (1098s)
e) what your driving (auto registrations)
They'll just send out levy notices on your accounts,
or garnishments on your wages.
All those short-staffed people won't be to your advantage.
The fact is, you won't be able to reach someone to help
you get off the hook - to help you stop those garnishments.
THAT's going to be the real problem with the budget shortfall.
When we need help - there won't be anyone there to HELP us!!!!!
OK, now, I'll tell you a little, tiny secret...there are special
phone lines for tax professionals to use to get help for our
clients. So, we're going to be just fine - and so will our clients.
But, you, out on your own thinking you're going to rip off the
system...well, there just won't be anyone there to help you
when you need it.
Hmmm...should I be gloating?
Is this budget cutback really designed to help provide more
income to Tax Professionals. Heck, I love it!
Monday, April 07, 2003
Last week, one of my tax pro readers brought it to my attention that the State of California had some legislation pending that will affect tax preparers.They tried it last year and got shouted down. Governor Davis proposed it again. It would require all tax preparers who prepare over 100 tax returns to file all returns electronically. It would assess a penalty if we don't.
Do you have any idea how many tax preparers in the State of California are not set up for this? Or how many are still charging SO little, especially in the smaller towns, that it would completely put them out of business?
Following is my open letter to Governor Gray Davis. Similar letters were sent to California State Senators and Assemblymembers.
Dear Governor Davis,
I'd really like to add my voice to those objecting to this proposal.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/professionals/eServices/efile/news.html#1b
You are receiving substantial tax monies to handle administration.
As tax preparers, we often don't get paid enough to make all the
detailed entries required for e-filing.
For instance, when a client works for the film industry, s/he may
have 20 W-2s. For me to enter ALL of them,with all the details
needed for e-filing, would take me well over an hour extra.
Do you think that client will be willing to pay me and extra
$150.00 for that task? I know they won't.
For you to do that, it might cost as little as $15.00.
I had another client who had a list of 300 stock transactions.
Naturally, in this market, resulting in over $50,000 of losses.
Do you have ANY idea how long THAT would have taken
me to enter, line by line? Including proof-reading, that might
have meant an entire day. There is no way I could charge that
client over $1000 extra, after he had given me a neatly printed
schedule that I can attach to the return. Yet, to file it electronically
would have required that.
You require that we maintain signed Forms 8453 in our files;
signed before the return is transmitted. Well, for tax professionals
who don't do simple W-2 only returns, we rarely have our clients
present when we complete their returns. It may take days or
weeks to track them down, get them the form to sign and get
a signed form back, whether original or faxed. For some clients,
it's simply not practical to file electronically.
And then there are those people who have complex returns
with K-1s and other pass-through income/loss that has errors
on them. Sometimes, we have to over ride lines in the program
and attach explanations. We can't e-file those returns either.
Sorry, folks. We pay good tax money to cover your staff's wages.
Please use it for the purpose intended, not to make us an
unpaid part of your staff.
Where we can file electronically, we will.
But you can't penalize us for not doing your job.
I respectfully request that you quash this bill.
Sincerely,
Eva Rosenberg, EA
President
TaxAnxiety.com, Inc.
Do you have any idea how many tax preparers in the State of California are not set up for this? Or how many are still charging SO little, especially in the smaller towns, that it would completely put them out of business?
Following is my open letter to Governor Gray Davis. Similar letters were sent to California State Senators and Assemblymembers.
Dear Governor Davis,
I'd really like to add my voice to those objecting to this proposal.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/professionals/eServices/efile/news.html#1b
You are receiving substantial tax monies to handle administration.
As tax preparers, we often don't get paid enough to make all the
detailed entries required for e-filing.
For instance, when a client works for the film industry, s/he may
have 20 W-2s. For me to enter ALL of them,with all the details
needed for e-filing, would take me well over an hour extra.
Do you think that client will be willing to pay me and extra
$150.00 for that task? I know they won't.
For you to do that, it might cost as little as $15.00.
I had another client who had a list of 300 stock transactions.
Naturally, in this market, resulting in over $50,000 of losses.
Do you have ANY idea how long THAT would have taken
me to enter, line by line? Including proof-reading, that might
have meant an entire day. There is no way I could charge that
client over $1000 extra, after he had given me a neatly printed
schedule that I can attach to the return. Yet, to file it electronically
would have required that.
You require that we maintain signed Forms 8453 in our files;
signed before the return is transmitted. Well, for tax professionals
who don't do simple W-2 only returns, we rarely have our clients
present when we complete their returns. It may take days or
weeks to track them down, get them the form to sign and get
a signed form back, whether original or faxed. For some clients,
it's simply not practical to file electronically.
And then there are those people who have complex returns
with K-1s and other pass-through income/loss that has errors
on them. Sometimes, we have to over ride lines in the program
and attach explanations. We can't e-file those returns either.
Sorry, folks. We pay good tax money to cover your staff's wages.
Please use it for the purpose intended, not to make us an
unpaid part of your staff.
Where we can file electronically, we will.
But you can't penalize us for not doing your job.
I respectfully request that you quash this bill.
Sincerely,
Eva Rosenberg, EA
President
TaxAnxiety.com, Inc.
Thursday, April 03, 2003
Congress, the President and the taxpaying public all have different concerns when it comes to tax laws, rebates, credits, deductions etc.
Frankly, the last round of rebates was outrageously irresponsible and expensive. It was short-sighted of Congress to approve. The whole thing was misleading - since it was not really a refund at all. It was just an advance from your regular tax refund. People are still screaming, and complaining, looking for the rebates they never got in 2001 - and it's been over a year an a half since.
The most recent round of tax cuts may or may not happen. With Bush focussing on the war, Congress is busy gutting the most recent tax bills. We've yet to see the final results.
To tell you the truth, the only way to change the tax system is to participate. Watch your Senators and Congressfolk - and send them e-mails and letters when you disagree - and even when you agree. It's always nice to get friendly letters, isn't it.
More to come....
Eva Rosenberg
Your TaxMama
Frankly, the last round of rebates was outrageously irresponsible and expensive. It was short-sighted of Congress to approve. The whole thing was misleading - since it was not really a refund at all. It was just an advance from your regular tax refund. People are still screaming, and complaining, looking for the rebates they never got in 2001 - and it's been over a year an a half since.
The most recent round of tax cuts may or may not happen. With Bush focussing on the war, Congress is busy gutting the most recent tax bills. We've yet to see the final results.
To tell you the truth, the only way to change the tax system is to participate. Watch your Senators and Congressfolk - and send them e-mails and letters when you disagree - and even when you agree. It's always nice to get friendly letters, isn't it.
More to come....
Eva Rosenberg
Your TaxMama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
