"Seth Breidbart" <sethb[at]panix.com> wrote:
- quote -

While I'm a whiz at many things I'm not much of a speller -
I meant to reference the punishment inflicted by Singapore
against that young fellow several years back who vandalized
property. TheY dropped his pants and whacked his backside
with a cane pole. I'm certain he learned his lesson long
before he blacked out.

BTW - inflicting such punishment requires a professional in
that field. If the cane is too small it cuts, if too big it
can break bones, if swung too fast it also cuts and if swung
too slow is ineffective.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with canning either - my
wife puts up some of the best strawberry preserves!

Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb[at]panix.com> wrote:

- quote -

Back ta home we called that "putting up." Maybe he was
talking about pillorying.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Gene E. Utterback, EA <gene[at]alliancerax.com> wrote:

- quote -

Except some of them might like it.

Or did you mean "canning"?

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

<upacreekagain[at]aol.com> wrote:

- quote -

The question is what is the extent of your measurable damages?
NOTE - I abhor sloppy work and firmly believe that if the
oversight boards were to institute a policy of caning those
that propagate such work then the profession would improve
immensely.

In your case, while you may be frustrated, I'm not sure you've
been damaged - or that if you have been, that your damages are
sufficient to assume the risks of litigation or even cover the
associated costs. While the accountant you used may have done
a poor job and made many mistakes, it seems that your returns
are now substantially correct.

And you can't measure any damages that have yet to occur - you
mention opening the door for an IRS audit. An audit of what?
If the returns are correct now then there is nothing to fear
from an audit. Besides, it will be most difficult to prove
IF you are audited that the audit was the result of multiple
corrections to your filings.

I'd also be interested in what you perceive to be the "great
deal more info" that had to be furnished to the IRS. In
amending or correcting returns you should have had to provide
no more information than if you had filed it correctly to
begin with. I've prepared my fair share of amended returns -
mostly to fix the work of others - and my generic explanation
is pretty much standardized - "The amended returns erroneously
included/omitted income/expenses."

As for your frustration about what it has taken to get your
returns correct, you have my sympathies - maybe!

You open your post with "when he has made repetitive mistakes"
but you don't elaborate on exactly what that means. If you
have used this accountant ONE time and during that first AND
ONLY engagement he made multiple mistakes that did not become
apparent to you until the end of the engagement then you have
my sympathies. It can be very difficult and frustrating to
know ahead of time if the person you've contracted with is a
true professional. There are numerous pretenders and they
have gotten very good and showcasing with smoke and mirrors.
For a new business person, especially in a new engagement
with a new accountant, you may not know you are working with
a charlatan until the end of the engagement. This is very
sad and if this is your case then I am very sorry for and on
behalf of my profession I offer my sincerest apologies.

However, if you have continued to use this accountant knowing
that he has made multiple mistakes over an extended period of
time or during many engagements, well then you have gotten
precisely what you bargained for and I have no sympathy for
you at all. Several times each year I meet with prospective
clients and we always go over our fees. Frequently we get
prospects who comment about our fees and rates and think we
charge too much. Yet most taxpayers don't realize what true
professionals have to go through. We have continuing
education requirements, software requirements, errors and
omissions insurance, security, rent and all the other things
every business incurs to conduct business. It isn't cheap
to become a professional and it isn't cheap to stay on top of
your profession and that is true whether your profession is
accounting or auto mechanics. If you have continued to use a
substandard accountant because he has really, really low fees
- well now you know why his fees are so low, you get what you
pay for and I have no sympathy for you at all.

At the beginning of my response I said "I firmly believe that
if the oversight boards were to institute a policy of caning
those that propagate such work then the profession would
improve immensely" and I meant it. What may not have been
apparent is that when I refer to "those who propagate" I am
including all the clients who use accountants that they
"KNOW" are doing a bad job.

I just met with a prospective client who is being audited by
the IRS because with $40K in gross income and $8K in mortgage
interest and taxes they filed a return that included $10K in
charitable contributions because the accountant said this
would get them a bigger refund. Now they are mad at the
accountant. I think the accountant and the taxpayer should
both be caned.

But that's just me,
Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

What kind of liability does a CPA have when he has made
repetitive mistakes? These run the gamut from multiple
misfilings,including late misfilings filing using the wrong
percentages of ownership in LLCs, having co-mingled LLC bank
accounts hardly if at all traceable,etc. All of which have
necessitated corrective filings which has prompted the need
to furnish th IRS with a great deal more info than before
required, and therefore opened the door for an IRS audit?
HELP -These are multi-million dollar accounts

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >