Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 63

Thread: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

  1. #31
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,586

    Re: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    EL
    OH
    EL

    Yea, it was no big deal, I mean, I just threatened the life of a federal agent cause I'm hardcore like that. No repercussions whatsoever. He tried to stiff me for a few extra grand so I ripped his larynx out and kicked him in the balls so hard that his sister walks funny.

    That's just how I roll.
    I didn't threaten him directly. he asked why I wrote a gun club membership as an entertainment expense. By that time, I was purdy pissed. I told him I needed the target practice. He asked why. I told him that I needed the target practice, so when I shot an asshole IRS agent, I could kill him with the first shot. It was worth the grand, or so extra he stiffed me for. My accountant still laughs about that ****.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #32
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,586

    Re: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    No, there's actually not. Tax evasion/fraud are the same thing. Presumably, when you refer to "cheating," you're referring to tax avoidance, which is legal. However, since this entire thread is about tax evasion/fraud, I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

    gee whiz, I don't know.

    Maybe this has something to do with it?


    Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #33
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Ahh, ya see, you left out the part where the accountant/lawyer turned states evidence, because he didn't want to go to jail for a helluva lot more than a wee bit of tax cheating.
    Not relevant. The point is that the accountant testified against their client...proving you, as usual to be wrong about just about everything you've said here.

    There is no accountant-client relationship confidentiality despite your wishful thinking.

    Apples and oranges
    Yet both are accountants testifying against their client.

    Did you not say this: "But, an accountant cannot testify against his client"

    Hmmm. Looks like you are wrong. Again. As usual.

    Annnnnnnnnd, where is Charlie Rangel, today? He ain't in jail? neither is Tim Geithner, nor Tom Daschle. Tax laws have teeth, may ass.
    Are you incapable of staying on subject? Wait. I know the answerto that. Evasion is not limited to not filing. Interesting how you AGREED that people go to jail for tax evasion yet claim the tax laws have no teeth. By the way, ever hear of a concept called garnishing?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #34
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,586

    Re: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Not relevant. The point is that the accountant testified against their client...proving you, as usual to be wrong about just about everything you've said here.

    There is no accountant-client relationship confidentiality despite your wishful thinking.
    It's very relevant. Th fact is, they were no longer, at that point, his clients. You seem very educated, but you also seem to lack real world experience.



    Yet both are accountants testifying against their client.

    Did you not say this: "But, an accountant cannot testify against his client"

    Hmmm. Looks like you are wrong. Again. As usual.
    Can a lawyer testify against his client? Even if his client is guilty as hell? He can't, huh?



    Are you incapable of staying on subject? Wait. I know the answerto that. Evasion is not limited to not filing. Interesting how you AGREED that people go to jail for tax evasion yet claim the tax laws have no teeth.

    That's exactly right, the laws have no teeth. Having teeth would be a person going to prison for jilting the government out of 100 bucks. In the real world, how millions does one have to screw the government out of, before one goes to prison?

    By the way, ever hear of a concept called garnishing?
    And, that has what to do with going to prison? You do understand that you can't garnish the wages of someone who is prison, right? hence, the reason why the IRS is very hesitant to put someone in jail for tax evasion, fraud, whatever you want to call it.
    Last edited by apdst; 10-29-09 at 04:21 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #35
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I didn't threaten him directly. he asked why I wrote a gun club membership as an entertainment expense. By that time, I was purdy pissed. I told him I needed the target practice. He asked why. I told him that I needed the target practice, so when I shot an asshole IRS agent, I could kill him with the first shot. It was worth the grand, or so extra he stiffed me for. My accountant still laughs about that ****.
    So you didn't actually "threaten to shoot the auditor" like you said. Glad we clarified that.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    gee whiz, I don't know.

    Maybe this has something to do with it?
    The fact that the headline writer for this paper used a colloquial term doesn't change the fact that the entire program is dealing with tax evasion/fraud, not tax avoidance. If you realized that already, then you're just being disingenuous by focusing on that choice of words now. If you didn't pick up on that before now, then I don't know what to tell you.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #36
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It's very relevant. Th fact is, they were no longer, at that point, his clients. You seem very educated, but you also seem to lack real world experience.

    Can a lawyer testify against his client? Even if his client is guilty as hell? He can't, huh?
    Because you seem to have missed it before, accountant-client privilege is much narrower than attorney-client privilege. Accountant-client privilege only applies in civil cases. An accountant can be forced to testify against his client in a criminal trial even if he is still a client.

    edit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26...29%282%29.html

    (a) Uniform application to taxpayer communications with federally authorized practitioners
    (1) General rule
    With respect to tax advice, the same common law protections of confidentiality which apply to a communication between a taxpayer and an attorney shall also apply to a communication between a taxpayer and any federally authorized tax practitioner to the extent the communication would be considered a privileged communication if it were between a taxpayer and an attorney.
    (2) Limitations
    Paragraph (1) may only be asserted in—
    (A) any noncriminal tax matter before the Internal Revenue Service; and
    (B) any noncriminal tax proceeding in Federal court brought by or against the United States.

    That's exactly right, the laws have no teeth. Having teeth would be a person going to prison for jilting the government out of 100 bucks. In the real world, how millions does one have to screw the government out of, before one goes to prison?
    If the laws have no teeth and the only penalty is that you have to pay the difference, why don't you just report 0 income every year? I mean, if you get caught, you only have to pay the difference, and the chance of getting caught is basically nil. Sounds like a great plan.

    Let me know how that works out for you.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 10-29-09 at 04:28 AM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #37
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,586

    Re: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    So you didn't actually "threaten to shoot the auditor" like you said. Glad we clarified that.
    I thretened to shoot an auditor, not the auditor. It was funny, though. Too bad you couldn't have been there.



    The fact that the headline writer for this paper used a colloquial term doesn't change the fact that the entire program is dealing with tax evasion/fraud, not tax avoidance. If you realized that already, then you're just being disingenuous by focusing on that choice of words now. If you didn't pick up on that before now, then I don't know what to tell you.

    Sounds to me like you lost your ass in the argument, perhaps you didn't get your money's worth with that shiney new degree you got, I dunno, and now you're trying to argue semantics. Just spitballin' here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #38
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,586

    Re: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Because you seem to have missed it before, accountant-client privilege is much narrower than attorney-client privilege. Accountant-client privilege only applies in civil cases. An accountant can be forced to testify against his client in a criminal trial even if he is still a client.
    But, you now admit that there is an accountant-clietn privilage. Yes? Thank you for admitting to that fact, instead of insisting that no such thing even exists.




    If the laws have no teeth and the only penalty is that you have to pay the difference, why don't you just report 0 income every year? I mean, if you get caught, you only have to pay the difference, and the chance of getting caught is basically nil. Sounds like a great plan.

    Let me know how that works out for you.
    Who said I didn't? There's no law that says a company has to make a single dime in income, nor any law that says a company has to ever make a profit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #39
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I thretened to shoot an auditor, not the auditor. It was funny, though. Too bad you couldn't have been there.
    No, you said:
    I threatened to shoot the auditer in the second audit, so I knew that check was going to be purdy big.
    Doesn't matter, cause I didn't believe it then, but don't pretend like you didn't say it.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    But, you now admit that there is an accountant-clietn privilage. Yes? Thank you for admitting to that fact, instead of insisting that no such thing even exists.
    I'm going to be charitable and assume that you misread what I was saying, because I thought it was pretty ****ing clear when I first said:

    Incorrect. Accountant-client privilege is far narrower than attorney-client privilege. The accountant-client privilege only applies in civil matters. If the government decides to bring criminal charges, there is no privilege.
    But if I'm wrong, and you're living in some alternate universe where that means I was denying that it exists, please feel free to clear things up for me.

    While you're at it, you might also want to clear up:

    1) How the Acct-client privilege covers criminal trials like you claim (It doesn't)

    or

    2) How the IRS has to show probable cause to audit, like you claim (It doesn't)


    Who said I didn't? There's no law that says a company has to make a single dime in income, nor any law that says a company has to ever make a profit.
    I'm aware. I just assumed that you made more than $1500/year. See, earlier, you claimed that if the government audits you, all you have to do is pay the difference between what you claimed as income and what you actually earned. Then, you claimed that when you got audited, you had to pay $1500. Since I assume you have more income than that, I assumed you acknowledge some income each year.

    If true, why are you reporting it at all? Come on man, have the courage of your convictions. Go balls to the wall. Dare the IRS to **** with you. Threaten to shoot people. This will only end well.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #40
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,586

    Re: Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    No, you said:


    Doesn't matter, cause I didn't believe it then, but don't pretend like you didn't say it.
    Whatever, dude! Who gives a ****?!?



    I'm going to be charitable and assume that you misread what I was saying, because I thought it was pretty ****ing clear when I first said:



    But if I'm wrong, and you're living in some alternate universe where that means I was denying that it exists, please feel free to clear things up for me.

    While you're at it, you might also want to clear up:

    1) How the Acct-client privilege covers criminal trials like you claim (It doesn't)

    or

    2) How the IRS has to show probable cause to audit, like you claim (It doesn't)
    No, up to that earlier post, you and Obvious Child try to tell me that there was no way that an accountant was ever obligated not to testify against a client. While I admit that the accountant client privilage has it's limits, just as the attorney client privilage has it's limits, the accountant client privilage does actually exist, as I stated in my previous posts.




    I'm aware. I just assumed that you made more than $1500/year. See, earlier, you claimed that if the government audits you, all you have to do is pay the difference between what you claimed as income and what you actually earned. Then, you claimed that when you got audited, you had to pay $1500. Since I assume you have more income than that, I assumed you acknowledge some income each year.
    No, I never said any such thing. What I said, was that when you get audited and the auditer finds illegal deductions, he subtracts them from your deductions. Example: you write off $5,000. The auditer finds $1,500 worth of illigitmate deductions. Then, he subtracts those from the $5,000 and you cut him a check for $1,500. I assumed you already new how audits worked, so that is why I didn't go into such detail.

    If true, why are you reporting it at all? Come on man, have the courage of your convictions. Go balls to the wall. Dare the IRS to **** with you. Threaten to shoot people. This will only end well.
    You haven't been paying attention, have you?...
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •