This is a pretty bold-faced lie. Nowhere did either of us deny that it exists - we merely tried to explain to you that it doesn't exist in all contexts, a concept that apparently continues to elude you.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.
Since the entire point of the discussion was your claim that the accountant could never send you to jail by betraying you, the fact that he very clearly can is pretty solid evidence that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Here's what you said: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.
Originally Posted by youI've learned throughout this thread not to assume that your interpretations of things are accurate, so rather than rely on what things actually are, I'm just responding to your claims. Since you were claiming that you're only responsible for the sales they can prove, and you were claiming that you only had to pay $1500, then it seems fairly obvious that you reported income > $0, unless you're the most convincing liar known to man.Originally Posted by you
Furthermore, the fact that you acknowledged that you couldn't lie about your sales or payroll, you obviously reported numbers > $0. Again, I'm asking you why you bothered to do that.