User talk:Harry Boscoe

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search
Leave a message for Harry Boscoe

This page is where you can leave a message for Harry Boscoe. Harry Boscoe will be notified of messages the next time they access TaxAlmanac.

Please make sure to sign your message by adding four tildes: ~~~~ at the end of your message.

If you are actually Harry Boscoe, this is your page. Feel free to edit your discussion page to add or remove anything you'd like.

Leave a message for Harry Boscoe by clicking here



Hey, it looked like a 1 to me! Trillium

Yeah, that's the thingie

I don't know what it's called - the straight up and down line thingy. It's on top of the key that would type \ if you didn't have the shift key down. (At least that's where it is on this keyboard.) Hey, you're right; that looks a bit like an i - I mean a 1!

Not sure about icons. I work regularly in a browser that doesn't even show them to me, if you can believe that, so I'm relatively hopeless w/r/t helping you determine if there's an icon for that. I just type the stuff in.

Trillium 14:22, 7 March 2010 (CST)


As I opened the fridge after typing my last note to you, it occurred to me - that straight up and down line thingy may well be called a "bar." I suppose it must be a coincidence that I thought of that after going to the fridge, and I'm denying outright the possibility of a Pavlovian cause or effect for any of this activity (the fridge-going or the recollection-happening).


You are very welcome!

I love to hear your comments and you keep us on our toes!

KathiJud 15:26, 21 March 2010 (CDT)

failed at the end

Harry, thanks for the kind words. I was unable to contain my sarcasm in the end. lol. CrowJD 14:26, 23 May 2010 (CDT)

your previews are safe

Nope, I can only see the actual edits! I hate to think of it as punishment for the DIY, rather it's that I'm relieving the actual pros from having to read the maybe-not-pros' questions. If they would put some info on their user pages to make it seem less like they're DIYs, that might actually help the rest of us understand where they're coming from. You know, kind of like it helps having some extra info about that non-tax investment planner guy who is an expert in retirement plans - the one who keeps coming back to ask really basic stuff about...retirement plans.... well, maybe that's a bad example.



Harry, I had to laugh when I read your last line. As I was reading your note, I was thinking “yep” to the first suggestion, and “yep” again to the second, and “yep” would probably apply to other ideas of our purpose, as well (e.g., just to let off steam, sometimes inappropriately…).

The emphasis on direct questions over long-term burning issues probably varies by season; you get into March and April, and solving the problems of the world would be one of the many luxuries sacrificed at that time of year. In the summertime, there’s a lot more interest in the big picture, and those discussions are always fun to read. But any time of year, many of the direct questions could be answered with a good search of the archives, so we really need both activities – and more – to keep the site traffic at a desirable level.

Saturday’s just another work day, for me; I didn’t actually have a lot of time to spend on TA this week, which probably showed more than I would have liked in my rushed posts here and there, so I figured I’d pop in now and then over the weekend and see if there was anything I needed to be doing. Either cleaning up my own messes that I’d made by trying to move too fast, or keeping things sorta normal otherwise. But I kept switching computers, and so I forgot to post this response to you until today. Sorry!

Trillium 13:29, 19 July 2010 (CDT)


Harry - sometimes improper spelling just leaves me feeling limp, for some reason. And in a pubic forum, no less.

What about that imply/infer mix-up from yesterday? That's a pet peeve of mine (even more than sight/site/cite), but it's a tough one to correct w/o getting overly self-righteous. I'm trying to resist, but one more new post there, and I might not be able to hold back.


you need one of these

Bracket Creep

Or is it two you need? I don't know which phrase is correct.

For all intensive purposes

that may be the perfect woman - were she holding a PBR instead of MGD.

Spell czech

Eye halve a spelling chequer. It came with my pea sea. It plainly marques four my revue miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word and weight four it two say Weather eye am wrong oar write. It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid, it nose bee fore two long And eye can put the error rite. Its rarely ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it, I am shore your pleased two no. Its letter perfect in it's weigh. My chequer tolled me sew.


Head and Shoulders

"Do you carry this stuff around with you or do you go hunting [mostly] every time?"

Sometimes both. You raised a VERY INTERESTING question, and I always like to research very interesting tax questions. Thank you for your complimentary words. DaveFogel 10:34, 11 September 2010 (CDT)


...for your help in the husband/wife/SMLLC restaurant discussion. Not much help really just pointing out the forest for the trees. I dealing with "counseling" situations I have this story in the back of my mind: I think it had to do with a rabbi: whenever someone asked him a question he would respond back with a questions. Someone finally asked him why he never gave an answer and why he always asked a question. He responded, "What is wrong with a question." MWPXYZ 08:58, 22 September 2010 (CDT)


I'd intended to look that up, and forgot - thx for saving me from the embarrassment of having my laziness and ignorance of ancient languages exposed to the internet world at large!!

Trillium 14:52, 24 September 2010 (CDT)

While we're at it...

Where do you stand on the which vs that selection? I feel like my post here should have used "that" instead of "which" - and I used to know the difference - but I've been so confused by MSWord telling me to use one and not the other (contrary to the actual grammar rules) that now I don't remember what I once knew about this choice.

PS, I like your eventual choice of non-italicizing; italicizing can sometime comes off as pretentious. Although I suppose using big words I don't know how to spell properly could have the same effect!

Trillium 18:31, 24 September 2010 (CDT)

OK...I get it now

Sooo...if the lady in Apt 2-A has a headache when I finish her tax return my tax prep fee income is far lower than if she does not have a headache...thanks for the clarification Harry... Pink Pearl 09:28, 27 September 2010 (CDT)

Company Name

I would go with no comma after, based on the following philosphy: The proper structure of the sentence is "CompanyName is going into bankruptcy." The placeholder "CompanyName" can have whatever punctuation it desires, including commas, dots, smiley faces, and Sanskrit. Unless the company's legal name ends with a comma, there is no need to put one there. In your example, "Inc." is not a clause to be separated by commas, it's just a part of CompanyName.

W/r/t your most recent "which vs that" example, I had read something similar previously and I have to admit that only added to my confusion. But thanks anyway! I found your first example much more illuminating, actually.


There's another way, too - BUT

Tim Doyle is looking into this, but some of the index pages (like this one, where all the 301.7701-X regs would normally be listed) are temporarily not displaying all of the info that they should be - you can see how that page kind of just cuts off in the middle of what would be a link to 301.7517-1. Didn't want to post about that on the discussion itself, since Tim's still determining the best/fastest way to get that stuff back to normal.

Getting all the way to that index page is kind of a hassle, anyway, so I always just use the search method for the regs - too many layers to click through the other way.

Trillium 18:09, 29 September 2010 (CDT)

edited because I hadn't actually finished my last sentence! Trillium

The code or the comments?

...'cause I can think of a lot of sections of the code I'd just delete if I thought it'd matter.

If you're referring to the comments from you and Dennis about stuff being missing... I did think about moving 'em to feedback. But I kinda feel like I'm participating in a cover-up while we wait to find out how it happened and how it's gonna be fixed. Not sure I want to actively perpetuate that (as opposed to doing so implicitly, which has already happened when I didn't post an explanation right on the discussion in question).

Actually, I'm pleased that people are noticing that stuff is missing! It's not like it takes a lot of time or effort, especially when Tim's TA-robot does most of the work, but sometimes as I'm copying/pasting/formatting, I do wonder if people are actually using the research resources that we're importing. Nice to know that there are some who get a benefit from it (or who might, if we get the abbreviated pages fixed).

Trillium 12:09, 30 September 2010 (CDT)

Thoughts on your questions:

Here are some initial responses to your note. I have the feeling this conversation might go on for a while, and I have a couple of things that I have to do today, so I'll just kick things off as follows:

Question 1. I'm sure you won't be surprised to find that I don’t agree with you! I think that the TA search function, used properly, is very good at finding relevant discussions, and that it’s not that hard to pick out the good discussions from the search results (scanning and browsing properly). However, what I have found is that far too often, people:

a. don’t want to learn how to use the search function for best effect,
b. want to either read every discussion in the search results, or pick one or two at random – neither of which tends to provide good results, and/or
c. don’t necessarily have the reading comprehension or the requisite tax knowledge to determine what discussions apply to their situation.

That's why I try to not only point people to the yellow box, but also provide some search ideas, usually linked, and even point out a couple of the results that seem like a good fit. Maybe just pointing to the box could be a cop-out, but generally I don't agree, since I think the chances of getting good responses in the archives are about equal to the chances that the right people respond properly to a new question (IMO the "not to be trusted" and "less-than-helpful" stats are about equal between "what's come before" and "what this discussion will bring").

Also - and probably near and dear to your heart - when the question involves a facts and circumstances issue, or an open/unresolved controversy (e.g., your interesting INTEREST issues and the other midterm problems), the search box is only going to give you the various sides of the debate, and not a resolution. IMO, that's as it should be, because there is no resolution. That might be frustrating to some people who only like black and white, but the world is gray on some of this stuff! Hey - if you think it'd be more helpful to organize some of the pro/con sides of the debate on a particular issue, so people can be referred there rather than sent to the search box when an "old classic" comes up, then start an article and go to it!

A concession, however: the older you go in the discussions, the less likely there were people around correcting things posted by those who probably shouldn't have been offering up responses, and the more likely tax laws have changed since the responses were written. So we're working on an idea to move a bunch of the older discussions into a new section of the site where they wouldn't automatically be included in a standard search (but it'd be really easy to expand the search to include them, if need be). I don't know whether or when Tim's going to be able to implement this, so no promises, but maybe that kind of adjustment would help to change your opinion of the value of the yellow box?

Question 2. I'll link you to a couple of the various places, but I think what you're getting at is that it's subjective, and you'd be correct. Is it too subjective, is that what you're saying? Is there a particular question/poster you're inquiring about?

Links: Top line of Website Use and Contribution Terms, which is linked to at the top of every page on TA, and while we're up at the top of every page, the tagline "From TaxAlmanac, a free online resource for tax professionals." When you start a new tax question, you see this definition of tax pro (because while the rule applies to the entire site, the tax forum is the focus for enforcement).

Then there's the pink notice box at the top of the tax and accounting forums, the Note to New Users, which is the very first screen somebody sees after they've created a user name, and the info on the Submit a Tax Question (4 steps) page. Having linked to those, perhaps you're saying we should put everything all in one place? Hmmm, maybe!

So – I have the feeling that you have a follow-up question prepared, or that your real question was hidden within the two that you asked. What was it that you really wanted to ask and/or say? (Having said that, though, I may not be able to respond again until tomorrow.)

Trillium 14:45, 15 October 2010 (CDT)

You can't even abbreviate that as F-up!

Yeah, sorry, when there was no response to my prior treatise I realized I’d probably gone a bit overboard.

Academic or hypothetical questions from the regular contributors are fine, IMO. I think it’s helpful to make it clear from the start that it’s not an actual client issue currently – not necessarily in so many words, but in how the question is asked. I’d use your “what is the authority” question as a shining light – it’s a perfect example in this regard. What great info that has provided for everybody!

Trillium 10:03, 25 October 2010 (CDT)

Ok Harry

Ok Harry, I'll pay more attention to my spelling and grammar. I do try to clean up my act when I'm acting in a professional capacity! Well, I'm off to my sister's house for a week. Take care. CrowJD 18:18, 26 October 2010 (CDT)

Temp Regs

Thanks for the warning


Aw, thanks!

I did have some inside info, though, in that I saw you post the comment and then remove it from the original R2/Dave discussion.

PS - I also have every pic-a-nic basket that's in Jellystone Park!


S Corp to Partnership

Hi Harry,

I asked this question below and listed your reply below also. In this case, if we change the election on the 8832 to a Partnership, where else do I have to change it since you say there are really two elections?

I inherited a client that set up a two member LLC (with her son) to hold rental properties and elected S corp. taxation similar to another post on here recently. This LLC was set up in Jan. 2010 so the 75 days has passed to change the election. I have suggested either changing to disregarded entity or partnership. They want to do a partnership and file 1065 going forward. The properties are managed by two property management companies and since January 1, 2010 the management companies have been paying the LLC/S Corp. However interestingly enough, (she claims for sheer laziness) she has not transferred any of the rental properties into the LLC yet and all are in her name still. She was just about to do the transfers but I told her to hold off. She needs to liquidate the S corp. but the S corp. has no assets right now except for some money in the bank account. She has been receiving income from the management companies and paying the mortgages and rental property bills via the LLC/S Corp bank account she set up. I have some ideas how to handle this but was hoping for some additional comments from some of the professionals in here. Regards!

11 November 2010 "Yes the S status can be unelected." Careful: The election for the LLC to be taxed as an S corporation is really *two* elections. There's an election to be treated as a corporation, and then there's another election to be taxed as an S corporation. Yes, they're made on the same form, but they are two different elections and you oughta be really really careful which one - or maybe both - you undo. This isn't anything to do with the titling/non-titling of the real estate but is in addition to it. I'm in a terrible hurry right now and maybe this isnt' totally clear but if it's not, you'll figure it out, cuz you're a smart guy.

Great question

I don't know if this discussion will help or hurt, but - boy-oh-boy - it was fun to read again: Discussion:Partner Section 179 Expense Deduction. I wanna be able to play in that league!! Trillium

Either way, you're right!

Editing to add: Maybe that's the only way true enlightenment happens? Trillium 17:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


The guy holding your head under water? (Or your company, in which case it could be the doctor/owner.)  ??? Trillium

Like magic

Now try your search again: Search "84-35", and this time the "is this my penalty" discussion will pop up, where Goldy posted the RP. Why? Because I edited it today, which caused it to be re-indexed. Unfortunately, can't do that in advance of every as-yet-to-be-searched search, can we?

There's still the little trickiness of a search on "Rev. Proc. 84-35" giving you different results than "Rev Proc 84-35" - but that's a horse for a different day.


S Corporation

Harry, on my Discussion page, you said, "With an S corporation, Uncle Vinnie could claim a tax deduction for the K-1 loss of the corporation. Not so with the Schedule C."

Why not? Could you explain? DaveFogel

S Corporation

Harry, thanks for your explanation. I get it now. DaveFogel 18:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I may not be the best speller or grammatically correct

but why do so many accountant-types not know how to communicate in English? No wonder our clients hate us as much as they hate going to the dentist! Kevinh5

Log-in problems

Sorry that this issue is so persistent for you. I have had it happen *once* since the last upgrade, and that was annoying enough. I'll send another note to Tim about it, as this is actually something he needs to get the SW guys to look at. I think that they thought that they'd fixed it with the last changes - clearly that's not the case.

Thanks for letting me know that there's a big hole in the ground with my name on it. I'll be a little more careful where I step!

Trillium 16:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead horses


I admit I looked up the meaning, as it's a word I'm not familiar with (prep, end of sentence, sorry <w>). Hey, thanks for the compliments. Do I get any CPE for sumer school?

Have a great rest of the weekend; this is only the second weekend this spring with weather warm enough to allow me to work in my garden. So I'm heading outside to dig in the dirt, get absolutely filthy, and physically exhausted. It's my 'therapy' after tax season.

And I agree, the horse isn't dead yet. And it isn't a pinto ( and white, get it?).

Hope Gamma enjoys her retirement. Belle 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


I live in the mountains of Northern California, at 6000 feet. Normally, I would have my vegetable garden planted by now, but we have had (understatement) a long winter, and virtually no spring. But when spring/summer/fall do arrive, it is absolutely spectacular here and I would not live anywhere else!

Too bad on the CPE - I've said many times that the 'education' provided available on TA shames many of the classes that do qualify for CPE. What will be the next topic for summer school, Professor Boscoe? Belle


" swizzled"

That ties in nicely with all of the PBR references; well, not really, as you don't swizzle beer (do you does one?). I would think 'swizzle' applies more to a mixed drink (I like a good martini - shaken).

No kids, and not under 40 - so those doesn't apply. Not over 60 (but getting d*mned close). I have lists (manual & electronic)/post-its, etc and still can't keep track of everything. I often call myself & leave messages to do this, or that. I attribute the problem to the information overload we are all experiencing as I refuse to admit to the aging process! Belle 19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's OK With Me!

"Dave, I tweaked your latest post in the "business of investing" thread. I think the casual reader won't even notice..."

A casual reader isn't the only one -- I can't tell what you changed! DaveFogel 19:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


That's great news, if they've fixed your issue. They did do some upgrades/maintenance a week or two back. So we can probably rightly give them credit. (Of course, since then, every once in a while when somebody adds a post to the end of the discussion, it doesn't jump it to the top of the index or update the "last poster" field. So fix one thing, break another (maybe)?)

Trillium 19:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Harry, Thanks for your reply. I still think I have to file a new EIN number. I will wait and think about this further.


Hi Harry,

Here's the thread:,_continued.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the CCA, in terms of it being with malice, ignorance or whatever. But if I had to guess, I'd said it's with complete and absolute ignorance. And as I stated, the conclusion in the CCA is a faulty one, based on a faulty understanding of the issue. The IRS loves to do this with taxpayers...They misunderstand the issue (perhaps intentionally sometimes), which makes every piece of their future logic faulty as well. That is, a misguised understanding, leads to a misguided analysis, which leads to a misguided conclusion. I've got a case in Appeals right now (unrelated to Interest Expense) where the IRS has done exactly this to the taxpayer - started with a faulty understanding of the law, and automatically, has ended up with a faulty conclusion. I lambasted the examining agent in a 9-page appeal dissertation. We'll see how it goes.

Ckenefick 21:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)ckenefick


Oh, brother, this is really getting out of hand. It's a wonder ANYbody posts with their - oops, I mean his/her/its own ID anymore. Tim says it's all about making the site efficient. They cache posts and then process them all at once, and in doing so, things get mixed up about who's posting what. But a glance at the "recent changes" page right now makes me think that you're not the only one who's posted as Cloudaccounting without meaning to.

Thanks for noticing that you were using the wrong name. Did logging out, closing browser windows, etc. help, or was it persistent? I'll send more facts on to Tim if you have any. Maybe that way they can kill this bug.

Hey, thanks for calling me a genius yesterday, too. As if my head weren't already too big for my shoulders!

Trillium 04:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try logging out as Plmlorg

Piratecpa reported some success by logging out (of the wrong ID) and then coming back w/his own userID. It's interesting that both of the ones you've been "kidnapped" by are relatively new userIDs. Others, though, are showing up as well-established names, so I don't want to take this new observation too far.

Several people reported issues like this over the weekend, and I sent a note to Tim. He has some engineers working on it yesterday, but it was clear it was still happening yesterday evening, which I communicated to him.

I don't know why YOU get to have all the fun with every glitch the site has. You must be special!

Trillium 16:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to ruin your fun, but...

On that link you provided on one of the two discussions about final/initial return, et al:

"You will not be required to obtain a new EIN if any of the following statements are true."

  • "An LLC that already has an EIN chooses to be taxed as a corporation or as an S corporation."

It's a good bit farther down than the part you were using.


Trillium 16:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Yeah, let's blame it on the page break.

I was cutting out globs of page footer info when I formatted the thing... but it's still my fault that I didn't notice that I'd left a partial sentence dangling there - even more incomplete than your garden-variety subparagraph and/or clause.

Trillium 18:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

edited - I seem to be experiencing an extreme form of typoxlexia today...

A question for you

Hi Harry, I'm new to this site but I was looking at a discussion regarding NOLs. I know you've replied to these questions ad nauseam but I'm not finding a clear answer to my question. If you don't mind, could you take the time to answer one more? A new client came in this year with a copy of last year's return. Last year's return showed an NOL of $16k on a business she is no longer operating; no election was taken. I starting asking the typical questions and asked for earlier returns. In 2005, an NOL was listed on line 21 and the election to carry forward was attached.

In 2006, the preparer did not show the NOL from the 2005 1040 on the 2006 return, however, 2006-2010 also produced losses, so the carry forward from 2005 wouldn't have made a difference. So, 3 questions. 1- Can I use the 2005 carry forward in 2011 even though it hasn't made an appearance on line 21 since the 2005 1040?

2- Since the 2006 tax year is a closed tax year, is there anything I can do with the NOL? I know I'd have to carry it back, since the election to carry forward wasn't made, but since the 2 years preceding 2006 are closed, do I have to amend them showing no tax benefit from the NOL, or can I just start carrying forward.

3- If I can carry forward an NOL for 20 years (after looking at the no benefit 2 year carry back) the 2007 would be the 1st carry forward year. Since it is a closed year, would I have to amend the 2007 showing the NOL? And if I do, would I reduce the NOL by the portion that would have been used if the return had been filed on time? (this doesn't actually apply to this woman since she had a loss in 2007 too, but I'd like to know for future reference)...whew, sorry for the book!

PBR cartoon

Did I mention to you a Sunday paper that had a cartoon featuring PBR? Well, I have it now but can't figure out how to get it to you. It might give you at least a small chuckle. I have it as an attachment to an e-mail from the cartoonist. It is not available online. I could forward it to you via e-mail, or print and snail-mail it. Podolin 14:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Harry

When I saw the 2nd reference to PBR. I had to look at your bio. It is Pabst. Hmmm. I guess you have to live in Wisconsin then.

I lived in Milwaukee in 72, and the UP of Michigan from 69 - 73, then everywhere else in the country since then. Nobody else calls it PBR.

And being an ex Yooper, I go by the handle of Suomalainen. Cheers.

NW Illinois

Thanks only a wedge from Wisconsin. You're probably closer to Milwaukee, than you are to Chicago. Have a good one.

Dave Saari

NW Illinois

Thanks only a wedge from Wisconsin. You're probably closer to Milwaukee, than you are to Chicago. Have a good one.

Dave Saari

Holloween to Halloween

Hey thanks Harry..just noticed that I effed up my spelling of my favorite day and u fixed it..Pink Pearl 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Message from Txlady

Harry thanks for the 1099DIV reply. Here's some more details to the situation.

He also used his personal credit card to pay for business type expenses.

    He gave me a breakdown of what those are.
    He wrote checks directly out of his business checking account to make those payments.
    So I would consider reclassing those dividends to deductible expenses.
    Some of those credit card charges were truly personal.

He wrote a check to himself for business expenses paid out of his personal checking account.

    Its more than the expenses

He's also paying himself a salary of $25,000 a year.

What bothers me is that he mixes personal with business His salary is too low

Any further thoughts are appreciated.

Thank you Evelyn Edwards,CPA

Short attention span?

When anybody does a search, the results will mostly be made up of the discussions/pages that include all of the search terms anywhere on the page. Sometimes, if there aren't too many search terms, there'll be an extra section of results at the top of the page showing discussions where all of the terms are found in the discussion title.

I do think that there are some people with short attention spans who only read the "title matches" and don't scan through the rest of the search results - the "content matches." That's probably not wise, though, since the discussion titles aren't always fully aligned with the discussion contents.

There are also a few people who tend to post new questions to the end of discussions, rather than start new ones - that's a valid preference, although it's a bit unusual. And within that group, there are a few who post new questions to discussions that have little to do with their current questions - except that the title seems relevant to their question. That usually doesn't work out so well.

... not sure I addressed all of your questions, but that'll get us started...

Trillium 21:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

By the Way

By the way...I have a case right now that I'm more than pissed off about...It is a case of national importance and I plan to stick it to the IRS in a major way. The taxpayer has agreed to be a guinea pig. Let me know if you'd be interesting in following along or assisting. I can provide the details. I've agreed to handle it pro bono (the first 1.5 years wasn't pro bono, but it is now). Take a look at my "Public Policy" post from about a month ago...

Ckenefick 21:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)ckenefick

Public Policy

Hey, thanks for the reply. I will plan on posting a thread when the case gets to the next stage.

Here's the interesting thing: Congress created the ETA criteria for non-hardship offers...public policy grounds, equitable grounds, exceptional circumstances, etc...You say that you don't much about this. But I will submit that you know just as much as the IRS does.

The real problem is that the IRS basically refuses to accept any agrument wherein taxpayer argues for public policy/equitable relief...even when the argument has merit and is not frivilous. That is, IRS continues to say "No, No, No" to these cases without anything to back up their negative response. The IRS is not weighing the taxpayer's case against the backup of the actual law, as mandated by Congress. In these cases, the IRS basically says, "We don't think you qualify for relief"...with very little or no explanation as to why. And often, the explanation they do give is based on arguments the taxpayer never even made.

I think it is about time that a judge got involved to tell us if the IRS' behavior here comports with the legislation...

Ckenefick 17:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)ckenefick


It could be a dealership for any kind of used cars, run by the mayor of Munchkinland.

Trillium - edited because they do have to be used cars

And if we can have incontenence,

why can't we have 'incontroverted'? I'm sure the problem is really un-continence. Kevinh5

Moving an article back to the forum

Just use the "move" command and add "Discussion:" at the start of the title. Then, add a new post to the end of the discussion to get it back on to the forum index.

Once you've done that, I can delete "Second or Third Try" for ya.

Trillium 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it back

It may show up on the "all topics" forum now, but it won't appear on the Tax Forum until you - or someone else who happens on to it - adds a post to the end.

Hope that's what you wanted. Will come back in a bit to check on "second or third" and "third or fourth".....


Mind Crime

LOL to your pleading...but we probably need to have a trial to get the right answer. Either way, Roy should lighten up.

Thin skinned

Sorry Harry, I was recently informed that every user can set the sensitivity level they want to use. I have set mine at zero so I fire back at any perceived snipe. What do I know? 16:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lighten Up?

Because I don't know who posted that "I should lighten up" comment I am posting here the question. "why or what should I lighten up?"

I have tried for years with great success in my opinion to not directly or indirectly say anything that could be construed as an ad hominem comment. It is my impression that is not true of all commentators. I now have been informed that what I see as unnecessary ad hominem comments are acceptable and maybe even be expected. These type of comments sometimes now just flow from my keyboard. If this should not be or my understanding is incorrect please let me know. Any comments about some line will be for the most part ignored, because with help from others I draw the line for me and I check my comment against the line before I post it.

Thanks for your assistance. Special thanks to Harry for the use of his space.

What do I know? 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh My Golly, Man...

I'm the last person - or at least one of the last people - you want to be asking to "draw the line" where gentility and politesse and do-unto-others should start and stop in this forum. I rarely - if ever - step back and ponder what the reader is going to *feel*. On the other hand, I think I do make a good moving target for your tomatoes and rotten fruit if you want to target me sometime.

More to the point, I think setting one's sensitivity "threshold" too low is just asking for it cuz you're the only one who'll even know, most of the time, that you're getting a snarl. And then you get to waste some of your serenity on it, and I did pick that word "waste" on purpose. Serenity is a priceless gift, and letting it trickle away because of what *other people* do is a *waste*.

Just another insensitive vibe from this crabby-ass pissed-off don't-get-between-me-and-the-fridge geezer. [Please see my further whining over at the Chat room.]

Harry Boscoe 15:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

One Wonders

When we get a seemingly easy question to answer, one wonders about the knowledge of the poster. One wonders how other "seemingly easy" aspects of this transaction might have been handled...Just wondering. One also wonders why interest was not paid and why poster did not insist upon its payment, for example.

Ckenefick 20:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)ckenefick

One Wonders, Part II

One wonders why it was sold in the first place...Is this a complicated transaction, worked up for some good reason? Is there a long-term promissory note, with interest only for a while? One wonders...

Ckenefick 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)ckenefick


...just takin' it a little easy today. Last day of the month, all January stuff is pretty much done...

Ckenefick 22:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)ckenefick

All Good Points


All good points. Maybe add a post to that post and set me straight.

Was there a game yesterday? I'm sure I was busy reading David W. Trout v. Commissioner, 131 TC 239.

Ckenefick 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)ckenefick

Slow for me, too

On and off slowness. It'll be fine for a while, and then down to one-minute or longer load times. I haven't received any other comments about it, and I'm never really sure if it's the site or my internet connection that's wonky. There's nothing going on with regard to the site that would explain it though.

Let's hope it fixes itself?

Trillium 01:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

And it's been getting worse

Not the girlfriend thing, I have no idea about that!! ...But the site is slow again today.

At least for me - long waits to post things today, even to preview.

You're right, it won't fix itself. It might be time for me to shut down and restart, though, in case the problem is partially on my end!

Trillium 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Let me know if you want that "Gold" might find it intriguing...but then might read it and say, perhaps out loud, "Boo to that Ck, he's a complete jackass!" Ckenefick 01:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)ckenefick


...didn't realize I sent it already. Didn't even know I had your e-mail I?

Maybe the *next* masterpiece will be on *interest expense.* But I'm leaning towards *basis.*

Ckenefick 18:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)ckenefick


Truly, a fascinating topic you've led us into...

Ckenefick 15:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)ckenefick

Not a Problem

Not a problem. I'm actually glad we kept on going with this one...fascinating indeed.

Ckenefick 16:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)ckenefick


From another User talk page: ..1983 Pontiac Firebird? Oooh, I remember when .. and who .. OK, but do you also remember what? Podolin 23:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Next Message

No problem with the fiddling of the answer, glad you pointed out my posting error.


constantly logged out

Harry that is very odd and as far as I can tell you are the only one (so far) experiencing this.

Two things to check:

1. Make sure your browser is set to accept cookies. Too much for me to type here, best if you go to google and type: how to accept cookies for <insert name of browser you are using> -- you will find the directions easily that way.

2. I relaxed the IP validation one notch, at the board. Some ISPs vary the IP address of their client and that might be part of the problem.

Let me know if any improvement after these two adjustments...

Personal tools