JohnH

You're right, which I believe can be simplified to "NO". (And THAT is something I will sign if asked.)

I agree with jainen, but with a slight twist. If you contact the IRS with the client on the phone, they will almost always discuss any issue with you in depth. My preferred method of contacting IRS is to verify with the client a time when they will be available & then call the IRS & put the phone on speaker while I do something else. When IRS comes on the line I explain that I need to put them on hold while I conference the client in. I then call the client, conference them into the call, and off we go. It's easy, quick, and no paperwork involved. Oftentimes the problem is solved, but at the least it gives us an immediate opportunity to gain additional time to work on the problem. I've never had but one agent to object to my using this approach - I wouldn't have wanted to deal with an agent with that type of attitude anyhow, so I just told them to forget it and I called right back & got another one with some common sense.

I think this helps because you have another good argument to offer (in addition to your other arguments). If there were times when they didn't have the money, then you're basically acknowledging that they illegally spent the trust fund money. If they always had the money on hand but failed to send it in due to an unintentional oversight, then you would add to your letter a comment to the effect that you can show that the money was in the bank available to pay the taxes, thus demonstrating there was no effort or intent to divert trust fund taxes for unauthorized purposes. It should actually help in your effort to get any penalties abated based on compassionate reasons. BTW, I think you should forget the interest because it's statutory. I'd just go ahead and pay it while concentrating on getting the penalties abated.

Thanks Eric. It looks great. We appreciate all your efforts. What's the financial picture like? Seems to me it's been a while since any of us mentioned that we need to click on the "Donate" button to keep things humming along. Come to think of it, what happened to the "Donate" buton?

I got an email today saying they would start shipping next week. (no date, just "next week". ) But since Thanksgiving is also next week, I'm assuming they mean Mon or Tues. The email also says it will run on XP, Vista, and Win 7. I assume everybody else got the same message. I'm looking forward to seeing the comments from you earlybirds so I can begin deciding whether to buy in December or wait until the first or second week of January.

Very interesting discussion. I may have to eat these words some day because it would be too financially painful to "Just Say No", but I haven't yet seen anything on this thread (or on any forums I have read) that I would sign.

I don't think muckracking financial writers should be attaching Obama's name to this problem. They should leave this task to the professional muckrackers when election time rolls around - that's when it will be most effective and hopefully benefit the country the most. And for REAL tax cuts that definitely don't have to be repaid, it would be helpful to point out that since 2003, each and every person having taxable income has saved a MINIMUM of $300 per year in taxes because the Bush tax cuts lowered the first tier from 15% to 10%. And they will continue saving a minimum of $300 per year as long as they live (thanks to the Bush tax cuts) unless someone in Washington decides they know better what to do with our money and begins to steal it back.

Sounds a little odd to me, but one never knows. This agency might be able to provide some guidance on your questions... http://www.mhp.net/index.php

That's interesting. Looks like I may as well plan to lose a client or two if this is really a requirement going forward, because I don't intend to sign any such letter for any lender.

The loan officer is an idiot and needs to go back to taxicab driving or whatever similar work he did before the bank made the mistake of hiring him. I think the only answer you can give him is "I can't make that assurance about my own business, much less somebody else's." (With the appropriate apologies to your client, of course). Why doesn't he just ask you to co-sign the loan for your client and be done with it? Or at least be honest and require you to provide the name of your E&O provider, since that's what he's trying to use to shore up his lending decision just in case the loan defaults. I just finished a refinance on my personal residence and I was glad to see the lender was being as careful as they are, but they did ask some pretty stupid questions and make some downright ridiculous demands for info. Oddly enough, the pendulum has swung very far on the side of conservative underwriting for low-risk loans, even though the standards are still pretty loose for high-risk borrowers who are overextended. This is a strange time in the lending business.

egg sell ant egg sample

Yeah, right. I rate him right up there with Jimmy Carter on how well he understands the the threat from a nihilistic Islamic fundamentalist ideology. And so far it appears he's capable of equalling or exceeding Carter's ability to facilitate its expansion. But he isn't alone - there are plenty of people in the US and around the world who continue to bury their heads in the sand.

Not surprising, since he can't even bring himself to call domestic terrorism what it is when the facts are right there in front of him.

I wouldn't describe it as building Democracy in Afghanistan - I'd call it a serious effort of "Whak-A-Mole" in Afghanistan.

Your client isn't telling you the truth - at the least he's playing fast & loose with the facts for some reason. I don't believe half of what he claims the auditor said to him. Possibly the questions about how you were paid has little to do with you but are part of a larger interest in how the guy pays all his bills. Maybe he's being quizzed about some things he doesn't want to tell you or the auditor about and he's trying to stir something up in hopes the REAL problem will go away. (I'm thinking possibly there's more to the gambling issue than you know, and he's talking to you about the depreciation as a smoke screen, but this is pure speculation. Maybe because I've dealt with a few clients like this before, as have most of us).

I hope he has a gambling diary or log.

I'd opt for meeting with them in the conference room. Once you discuss things with the auditor, you can excuse yourself and go get anything he/she requests, if needed. If nobody told you what to bring to the meeting, then there's no reason to expect you to have it there. Incidentally, if the auditor actually said (s)he didn't think you asked enough questions, how could (s)he have any opinion on the subject until (s)he asks you what you did ask?

Yes, exactly right. I'll bet there will be at least one extension of the deadline - at least a year and maybe more.

And there's plenty of time for there to be all sorts of extensions and modifications of the deadline. (And for me, plenty of time to decide whether to accelerate that retirement date)

I haven't been banned from the forum I think you are referring to, but believe it or not I have been officially reprimanded over there for stepping over the political/economic/religious line once or twice. The difference, of course, is that the owners of that forum & most others are free to make and enforce the rules as they wish, whereas I hope we can continue to enjoy a more lively and open-minded approach here since we are all co-owners in a sense. And of course I still think your position on the AMT is full of logical holes & inconsistencies, not to mention bad policy.

Yes, I got it too.. More-or-less a cross between Priceline and ebay.

Catherine: No disagreement with your opinions on the tax system, etc, but I'd like to see you alter or delete that last sentence. jainen doesn't need me to defend him, but I think diversity of opinion is what makes this forum unique, and he's not the only person on this forum who holds those views. Personally, I learn much more from people who disagree with me than from people with whom I agree. You need iron to sharpen iron.

If I were interested in Drake, then after reading the guardian webmaster's last post I think I'd be able to say I've seen all I need to know.

Tom: We do have equality, but some people are more equal than others. Government's role is to "spread it around a little", according to a recent political candidate and his sycophants.

In some states, the name of an administratively dissolved entity is not avaliable for 3-5 years. The only way to reactivate the exact same name is to go through their reinstatement process. You may want to check with your Sec of State (or whatever department administers LLC's) to determine if it's even possible to follow the "new LLC" route.