Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
- quote -

They can't do that anymore, the IRS has recently indicated it considers
publicizing a statistical average dollar amount to be a violation of
taxpayer consent-to-use-information requirements.

[from misc.taxes newsgroup, Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:]
- quote -

Do you have a specific complaint against mills (and the millers who work
in them)? Surely some of the EA's and CPA's and the other tens of
thousands of experienced tax pros who work in the mills have a clue what
they are doing, or at least the IRS thinks so...

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gl0jo5$246$1[at]news.motzarella.org> ,
Taxmanhog <taxmanhog[at]comcast.net> wrote:
- quote -

I was overwithheld despite my wishes for a couple of years. My employer
paid me both a salary and shares of stock, and the broker that handled
the stock insisted on withholding at least 25% when I sold it,
regardless of the fact that my marginal tax rate was 10%.

I put as many allowances on my W-4 as could be justified by filling out
the worksheet on the back with itemized deductions, child tax credit,
etc. Even had I put 99 allowances, however, I would still have been
overwithheld because of the mandatory 25% withholding on the stock.

Did my employer's stockbroker insist on 25% because it was convenient
for the broker, because they misunderstood tax law, or are they really
required to do so? If so, why, since I believe (correct if wrong) the
majority of the population is in the 15% bracket or below?

Lee

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 19, 12:18*pm, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

Dick, I certainly agree, but I think this is more about refundable
credits (and it looks like
Washington is considering expanding the additional child tax credit)
than preparers
directing taxpayers to have a W-4 with: withhold at single rate, zero
allowances.

An employer has to provide advance EITC to qualifying employees who
want it, and that
would take care of a lot of the refund loan folks. However, back in
the days when I might
encounter advance EIC on a W-2, it was usually accompanied by someone
who was not
happy about breaking even (or owing) at tax time.

We've passed a law saying you can't charge usurious rates to active
duty military and their
families--why can't we have that protection for everyone?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Paul Thomas, CPA <paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

Client soliciation is one thing, but, in my rarely humble opinion,
it is unethical, immoral, and several other things to have your
client over withhold and then get them a rapid refund loan.

The profession took a giant step backwards when the AICPA cowered
to the Reagan Federal Trade Commission on commissions and referral
fees.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Taxmanhog" <taxmanhog[at]comcast.net> wrote
- quote -




And the tax prep mills make it a point to attract those folks who have over
withheld to the tune of thousands of dollars, even going so far as to brag
about the high-dollar average refund that a majority of their customers get.






--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, Georgia

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Taxmanhog <taxmanhog[at]comcast.net> wrote:
- quote -

When you have a refund coming, it means you loaned money to the
goverment. Teach you to loan money to an uncreditworthy debtor.

- quote -

The trick here is for everyone in Kalifornia to underwithhold,
file their taxes asap, but pay them with a check on in the mail
on April 15th


- quote -

Did you expect less?

- quote -

Was this decision made by Gubner Arnold or by Treasurer Lockyer?

- quote -

The only justifiable reason to overwithhold is to avoid
penalties for late filing - up to three years!

- quote -

It gets better as their bond ratings could start to drop.
California will soon be selling or auctioning off the farm.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"paultry" <afn02552at[at]afn.org> wrote in message
news:gkvuia$puu$1[at]news.motzarella.org...
- quote -

It is the pinnacle of Hypocrisy!

I am guessing, that a prudent wage earner would elect to carry forward the
2008 refund credit to 2009 rather then seek a check in the mail when ever
Arnie is damn good & ready to send it!

Then reduce their current wage W/H in a targeted fashion to approximate the
funds carried forward plus any current year over with-holding through the
remainder of the tax year. It still amazes me that people OVER With Hold!

This continues if not accelerates the cash flow problems for the CA
Treasury, as noted above, Weekly Trust Fund deposits will drop, exacerbating
the State(s) problems now & the rest of the year.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Paul Thomas wrote:

- quote -

And more tax delinquencies in 2010.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

<lotax[at]hotmail.com> wrote
- quote -




I imagine many employees going to their employer and decreasing their
withholding during 2009, meaning ~~less~~ cash to the state.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 18, 3:14�am, "Reggie" <Reg...[at]wantsnospam.com> wrote:
- quote -

doesn't have the "funds" to deposit its employees' withheld taxes,
it's considered somehow a criminal act, since the withholding is a
trust fund, or it's not really the employer's money, or something like
that, but when the state can't come up with *the taxpayer's* money,
it's just a cash flow problem, and "we'll give you *your* money when
we can find it...."
do I recall that it was California that was increasing the state
income tax withholding rates to generate better cash flow for itself?
amazing, but what's troubling to the goose is also troubling to the
gander. cash flow shortfall has to be made up next cycle!!!
Duh...!!!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

State Controller announces delay for tax refunds
Due to the state's persistent cash and budget problems, the State Controller
announced on Friday, January 16, 2009 that he will have to delay refunds for
30 days starting February 1, 2009 for Personal Income Tax and Business
Entity taxpayers.

FTB is still processing returns as normal. However, it is likely this delay
will affect state refunds for most early filers. Returns that have not
completed processing before February 1, 2009 will have their refunds held
for 30 days.

This applies to all refund types. Delayed Direct Deposit Refunds (DDR) will
be electronically transmitted when funds are available.

FTB will update this website with FAQs as further information becomes
available.

SCO Press Release

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >