In article <gmhu54$nid$1[at]reader1.panix.com> ,
Dick Adams <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote:

- quote -

I didn't say the audits are very _hard_. I suspect that they aren't;
they exist so that the _threat_ of audits doesn't exist.

- quote -

I meant they probably all have accountants to do that sort of thing.

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

Unfortunately no. He told me that years after it happened, so I had no
opportunity to help.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

That's beautiful! Did you get the penalties abated?

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

I was once consulted by someone who, the first time he filed a tax
return, didn't know what to do so he checked the box to have the IRS
calculate the tax. All the information he gave was accurate and
complete.

A while later the IRS contacted him and told him the calculation of tax
had been incorrect, and he owed more tax. Plus interest and penalties.

I've since heard similar stories in occasion.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -

I've not heard that. But I did read somewhere that a US Supreme
Court Justice (someone else will have to remember who) was not
pleased with his audit by the IRS and bent as far as he could
against them in his judicial opinions afterthat. Now if that
is true, just think about what happens when Congress gets
audited.

But it does need to be done.

- quote -

It's possible, but who wants the IRS to prepare their return?
OTOH if you turn over complete and accurate financial data
to the IRS and they prepare your return, have they not
effectively audited you and closed that year?

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <8nKil.101$9a.22[at]bignews1.bellsouth.net> ,
Harlan Lunsford <lunstax[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

That's the version I heard. The IRS started doing it many years ago
in order to avoid accusations of attempting to use political pressure.

- quote -

I doubt any of them do their own returns. (Now someone is going to
find one who does.)

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Seth wrote:
- quote -

Okay, let me get this straight. Are you saying that ALL congresspeople,
reps and senators, get audited each and every year?

OR; are you referring to a special "tax force" set up to assist them
with actual preparation of their returns?
There's a difference.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 <m8pil.38$fL1.11[at]bignews1.bellsouth.net> ,
Harlan Lunsford <lunstax[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

Since the IRS set up a special section to deal with them, many years
ago.

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Seth wrote:
- quote -

Since when?

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 <SmYhl.391$QP5.374[at]bignews4.bellsouth.net> ,
Paul Thomas, CPA <paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

- quote -

They are.

Happy now?

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 in message
news:SmYhl.391$QP5.374[at]bignews4.bellsouth.net...
- quote -


Hey: They wanted change.

Going from bad to worse is still a change!

------ END political rant.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 <gm7sfp$ln0$1[at]news.motzarella.org> , Tom <Tom[at]cppc.com> wrote:

- quote -

Was the 1099 for the full amount you received? In that case, it's
quite wrong. Or was it for the amount of the payment that represents
interest (that is, the excess over the amount you originally deposited
in escrow)?

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Harlan Lunsford" <lunstax[at]bellsouth.net> wrote
- quote -





Yup. They're the people who are going to set a shining example of
citizenship, service and sacrifice to this country as they lead us to change
from the prior dastardly presidency into the new and improved dastardly
presidency.



This crap just goes to show that all Congress people should be audited every
year.






--
Paul 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Harlan Lunsford <lunstax[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

No, but Quasimodo does.

- quote -

Yes, you should not have.

BUT, I miss the old days where failing to withhold trust funds
on your nanny or your housekeeper was enough to get your name
taken off the list.

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
(snipped....

- quote -

Oh, I'm SO tempted to post an answer to this one. Does "Dashcel" or
Geithner ring a bell?

nevermind. I just better not respond after all.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Tom <Tom[at]cppc.com> wrote:

- quote -

Your accountant could be right. In some circumstances if
a fixed-income investment has gone into default, any future
payments are treated by the recipient as return of capital.
See Pub 550. You would report this on Schedule D.

Steve

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -

delete it. Oh well.

I had money in an escrow account, which they returned to me in 1/08. At the
time I asked my former accountant about it and he said it was not taxable as
it was just my money being returned.

So, you are sugesting I make two entries; one for the interest and a second
entry with a negative number so they sum to zero?
How exactly do I explain to the IRS what I have done? Write "see note 1"
and attach a sheet with an explanation?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Tom" <Tom[at]cppc.com> wrote
- quote -




Neither I nor you know what their intent is. The 1099 is supposed to
represent interest you were paid during this year. Correcting a prior year
1099 is done on that prior year's form.

Unless the dollars are insignificant, just how does one 'forget' receiving
income.






- quote -



Regardless of it's "realness", you need to address it on your return. Do
not just ignor it, because the IRS thinks it's real and they will expect you
to address it on this year's return in some manner.

You need to check your records and if you believe it's not valid income,
then handle it accordingly. You could, report the income and subtract it
back off with your explanation that it was never received directly or on
your behalf. This will probably not be an e-file return with the
explanation attached.







- quote -



Yes, they have to tell you what the heck they are doing. And if not you,
then they'll end up telling the IRS.

Me? I'd tell the IRS the 1099 is not valid, that you didn't receive the
income, that you can't get the issuer to explain the source/reason for the
1099, and that you shouldn't owe the tax on that amount.

Eventually, quicker if the dollars are significant, the IRS will get around
to asking them to validate the 1099 data.



In the mean time, there's no way to guess what happened. You are in the
best position to know what loans you had made to the entity, etc. If you
don't know what it's about, how can anyone else.






--
Paul 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

I had money invested in a company a few years ago and separated from them on
very poor terms.

Last week I got a really big 1099-INT from them. I had no money with them
last year, and they certainly never paid me any interest in 2008. I have
called them, but they refuse to tell me what it represents.

All I can think is that it represents a correction of an error a few years
ago; I don't think there were any errors, but have no other explanation for
how it might be correct.
So I have a few questions...

1) It is a 2008 1099-INT. Does that mean it is for interest paid me in
2008, or could it also be interest paid in 2006 that they failed to send out
a notice on; or just became aware of? (I don't know of any such interest,
but it is possible.)

2) Since I believe it to be bogus, if I ignore it and it turns out to be
real, do I have any problems other than paying appropriate taxes and
penalties when audited?

3) If it is bogus and I run into problems with the IRS over it, would they
be responsible for my expenses?

4) Do they have any obligation to tell me why it was issued?

5) Any ideas what it could be, assuming it is correct?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >