ranchers beef about being audited 13 years ago for not paying their due taxes

[butters]

i find it hard to feel sorry for them, given they were claiming (through their tax person) 80% instead of the 50% allowed on their work vehicles. She is convinced it was all a 'gotcha'... when, in fact, it's about paying what you're supposed to. How many of these same kind of people (tax dodgers) are the self same who deride the homeless, those below the poverty-line for claiming food stamps, people who actually can't work claiming disability allowance? It may have been invasive (that i understand as a horrible thing), but it's about accountability in the end.

so, yeah, if you're dodging your taxes, expect the newly beefed up IRS to look at you.

"He wasn't satisfied. He kept digging, and he ended up nailing us. Our tax person was giving us 80% on our work vehicles, and he said you can only do 50%," David said.

"I was very naive about the situation. I had no idea of the power, the scope [of the audit] going in three years of my life… and me having no control over that, no control over the information he was given," Deborah said.

"It was very invasive. You feel very attacked because that guy wanted to go back and say, ‘I got her.’"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/tax...pc=U531&cvid=fb593a53d4584abec6b551e00ed14927

 

[Fuzzy1975]

They should have been pissed at their accountant. I don't know the tax laws around the vehicle expenses, but if they were only entitled to 50%, and they claimed 80% then guess what? You owe money....no fault of anyone but them, and their accountant.

 

[KeithD]

Yep, the rancher's issue is with their accountant, not the IRS.

 

[Pad_Foot]

No no noooo
M A G A
But
Tax us less
And… never ever cut defense budget!!

 

[ishtat]

If the issue was just this, it would normally be dealt with by a call from the IRS and a change from 80% to 50%. It is such a minor issue that it could be resolved in a 2 minute phone call. The amount of money would be trifling unless they had dozens of vehicles. This is not the kind of dispute that attracts a full Audit. If just a wrongful advice issue it, would be a simple professional indemnity claim against the accountant/tax advisor as previously noted.

I suspect that the tax (non) payer is not telling the full story.

 

[butters]

If the issue was just this, it would normally be dealt with by a call from the IRS and a change from 80% to 50%. It is such a minor issue that it could be resolved in a 2 minute phone call. The amount of money would be trifling unless they had dozens of vehicles. This is not the kind of dispute that attracts a full Audit. If just a wrongful advice issue it, would be a simple professional indemnity claim against the accountant/tax advisor as previously noted.

I suspect that the tax (non) payer is not telling the full story.

i suspect you may be right on the button

and find the timing somewhat... convenient, speaking more to political bias than anything

13 years ago, President Barack Obama, right? today, President Joe Biden. Were they complaining when they were getting away with it before?

 

[ll74]

So let me get this straight....people who haven't paid taxes they owed are afraid they'll have to pay those taxes they haven't paid and they're openly complaining about it?

 

[butters]

So let me get this straight....people who haven't paid taxes they owed are afraid they'll have to pay those taxes they haven't paid and they're openly complaining about it?

well, this couple were audited 13 years ago after the IRS got interested in an engine rebuild payment... but 'they dug and dug' and actually found this But they're bitching about it now because.. well, Biden's gonna send armed tax collecters after us all

 

[butters]

this army of "armed to the teeth tax robbers".... most will be dealing with tax rebate claims, and as for those having to visit likely tax-avoiders, who can complain they'd want to be armed (if they are) given these may be the kind of people to have multiple guns on their premises and quite averse to being audited.

 

[ll74]

well, this couple were audited 13 years ago after the IRS got interested in an engine rebuild payment... but 'they dug and dug' and actually found this But they're bitching about it now because.. well, Biden's gonna send armed tax collecters after us all

It's a good strategy when you haven't paid taxes to publicly tell everyone about it
¯\(°_o)/¯

Lmao

 

[Fuzzy1975]

If the issue was just this, it would normally be dealt with by a call from the IRS and a change from 80% to 50%. It is such a minor issue that it could be resolved in a 2 minute phone call. The amount of money would be trifling unless they had dozens of vehicles. This is not the kind of dispute that attracts a full Audit. If just a wrongful advice issue it, would be a simple professional indemnity claim against the accountant/tax advisor as previously noted.

I suspect that the tax (non) payer is not telling the full story.

The vehicle deduction was not the reason for the audit. It had something to do with a deferred capital expenditure deduction they seemed to be claiming on a farm tractor repair. From what I read, they also claimed it in a year of negative profits. The auditor did confirm the validity of that claim, but found the vehicle deduction issue, and rightly informed them they owed money. I also suspect the IRS didn't add in interest and penalty, for that. Or if they did the accountant's insurance would have covered that portion of the bill.

Again I am Canadian, and our tax laws don't mirror the US ones. But I suspect the Capital Deduction was the flag that put them into an Audit. I had similar tax disputes and in both cases they came to the office and did a preliminary examination.

 

[LittleDixie]

Taxation is theft.

 

[Chobham]

It's not as simple as the article would have anyone believe.

First of all it's a farm vehicle, no road use, so that alone entitles them to a 100% allowable "actual expense" deduction. And therein lies the kicker, which accounting method did they go for? I would assume "actual expense" as opposed to "standard mileage." Given that a tractor ISN'T a road vehicle "actual expense" is the only method that makes sense.

Under the "actual expense" rules you can deduct;

• Repairs and maintenance
• Gas and oil
• Garage rent
• Car Insurance
• Loan interest
• Registration fees and licenses
• Rental or lease payments
• Tires
• Tolls and parking
• Depreciation

Then comes the confusion. The 50% vs. 80%. That makes it sound like they're talking about depreciation, not repair expense and if they were claiming depreciation the IRS is correct, 50% is the max. But the article states it was an older vehicle and that implies it should have already been fully depreciated in which case they get 0% deduction.

Later in the article "work vehicles" are mentioned, plural. Implication being that while the tractor repair might have triggered the audit, the final resolution had nothing to do with the tractor and had to do with depreciation on other vehicles. I hope they changed accountants.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Taxation is theft.

Only to a simple-minded, poorly educated person it is.

 

[LittleDixie]

Only to a simple-minded, poorly educated person it is.

They take your property without your consent.

...it's theft.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

They take your property without your consent.

...it's theft.

Taxation by government is legal.....sorry you don't understand that simple fact....sucks to be you I guess....always yelling at the man...*chuckles*

 

[ll74]

Taxation is theft.

No. It's not....never has been. Take a civics class or move to an island by yourself else stfu.

 

[LittleDixie]

Taxation by government is legal.....sorry you don't understand that simple fact....sucks to be you I guess....always yelling at the man...*chuckles*

You know, I've had this exact same semantic debate before, and I've argued the same point that you are. TECHNICALLY, the definition of theft includes "illegal", and since taxation is legal, it isn't considered to be theft. I've found this irritating, because it is essentially a sanction on an immoral act when it is done by the State. If the government takes your money without your consent, it's not technically theft, because it is legal. I can't decide which I find more odious; the actual taxation or the means employed to excuse it.

But, since we live in a world with a living breathing language, where even questions of gender and sex can be changed at will, and people can insist on their own unique pronouns, then I see no real problem with taking a little liberty (no pun intended) by employing some flexibility with the word "theft". Neither you, nor anyone else has ever disputed that like in the dictionary definition for "theft", taxes are taken without one's consent - only that the taking was sanctioned by a bunch of old white men who wear ties and are very important, taking votes and using proper Parliamentary procedures. I would argue that it is a distinction without a difference.

Frankly, the fig leaf of legality is a joke. Votes and laws and policies do not change the substance of what taxes are - extortion and theft.

 

[icanhelp1]

i find it hard to feel sorry for them, given they were claiming (through their tax person) 80% instead of the 50% allowed on their work vehicles. She is convinced it was all a 'gotcha'... when, in fact, it's about paying what you're supposed to. How many of these same kind of people (tax dodgers) are the self same who deride the homeless, those below the poverty-line for claiming food stamps, people who actually can't work claiming disability allowance? It may have been invasive (that i understand as a horrible thing), but it's about accountability in the end.

so, yeah, if you're dodging your taxes, expect the newly beefed up IRS to look at you.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/tax...pc=U531&cvid=fb593a53d4584abec6b551e00ed14927

Ah, typical British, taxation without representaction.

 

[ll74]

Ah, typical British, taxation without representaction.

They have representation

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You know, I've had this exact same semantic debate before, and I've argued the same point that you are. TECHNICALLY, the definition of theft includes "illegal", and since taxation is legal, it isn't considered to be theft. I've found this irritating, because it is essentially a sanction on an immoral act when it is done by the State. If the government takes your money without your consent, it's not technically theft, because it is legal. I can't decide which I find more odious; the actual taxation or the means employed to excuse it.

But, since we live in a world with a living breathing language, where even questions of gender and sex can be changed at will, and people can insist on their own unique pronouns, then I see no real problem with taking a little liberty (no pun intended) by employing some flexibility with the word "theft". Neither you, nor anyone else has ever disputed that like in the dictionary definition for "theft", taxes are taken without one's consent - only that the taking was sanctioned by a bunch of old white men who wear ties and are very important, taking votes and using proper Parliamentary procedures. I would argue that it is a distinction without a difference.

Frankly, the fig leaf of legality is a joke. Votes and laws and policies do not change the substance of what taxes are - extortion and theft.

*chuckles* more yelling at the man....if you don't like paying taxes, move to somewhere that doesn't have any taxes....
It really a very simple problem to resolve...little dick see.

 

[LittleDixie]

*chuckles* more yelling at the man....if you don't like paying taxes, move to somewhere that doesn't have any taxes....
It really a very simple problem to resolve...little dick see.

I see. So, you're saying that if you see an injustice or wish to see change, you shouldn't complain about it or point it out, you should just move someplace else.

Interesting.

Odd that you don't make the same argument to people complaining that insulin costs too much. You're a gigantic hypocrite.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I see. So, you're saying that if you see an injustice or wish to see change,

Taxation is not an injustice.........*chuckles* sorry, it the law of the land. Keep yelling at the man!!

Odd that you don't make the same argument to people complaining that insulin costs too much. You're a gigantic hypocrite.

Insulin is cheap here, less than $15.00 a month ( if you don't have employment benefits, if I was on Insulin my health coverage paid by my employer covers it 100%)) and free if your over 65...what's there to complain about....

 

[YDB95]

Insulin is cheap here, less than $15.00 a month ( if you don't have employment benefits, if I was on Insulin my health coverage paid by my employer covers it 100%)) and free if your over 65...what's there to complain about....

I have no idea as to the logic behind it, but it's been an article of faith among American right-wingers for decades that Canadians hate their health care system. (Of course, among the Canadians I know, it's often true BUT they have no desire whatsoever for it to be anything remotely like ours!)

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I have no idea as to the logic behind it, but it's been an article of faith among American right-wingers for decades that Canadians hate their health care system. (Of course, among the Canadians I know, it's often true BUT they have no desire whatsoever for it to be anything remotely like ours!)

I don't find too many people I know who express that they hate our "system". I do know of a lot of people who are frustrated about how the system works though. Still that is a perception. Side by side comparisons between the US system and our, show next to zero difference in medical outcomes for patients.

And nether system is near the top in rankings of healthcare in the world.