User talk:MP-JD-LLM

From TaxAlmanac

Thanks

Now just copy your user info from the other name, and paste it on the user page for this name, and you'll be good to go.

Trillium 23:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright policies

In Discussion:Subpart f income, you posted what appears to be copyrighted material - if so it cannot be posted here under the terms of TaxAlmanac's copyright policies:

• policies
• The bottom of this help page provides some specific advice: "To be safe, do not copy more than a couple of sentences of text from anywhere, and document any references you do use. You can copy material that you are sure is in the public domain, but even for public domain material you should still document your source. Also note that most Web pages are not in the public domain."
• Website Use and Contribution Terms has the details.

Your attributed quote could maybe fall with the legal right of "fair use" IMO for material that is copyrighted, although it's on the long side for that. But as you can see, TaxAlmanac is stricter than that - mainly because the site is relying on its users not to get the site into trouble on copyright issues.

Please edit your post to provide just the reference/cite and a paraphrase. I'll wait a bit so that you have a chance to do that, but in case you don't get around to that - at some point tonight I'll have to edit it to just the reference/cite, and you can add a paraphrase back in tomorrow if you like.

Please let me know if you need more info on the site policies. Thanks.

Trillium 05:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again

Seems you must have been working on that edit already, even as I was leaving the prior note for you, so the note here was thus unnecessary. I'll get rid of my post on the discussion now, so that it'll stay on track. Thanks for helping out with this.

Trillium 05:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Transferring my response to you, over to here

As I mentioned, I was going to try not to send that discussion into a tangent about legal interpretations and how site policies may sometimes exceed the minimum required to comply with laws... however since you addressed a post to me, I did respond to you there. I am now going to transfer it here, as I'd still like to keep that discussion on track with the question asked by the Original Poster.

My response was:

Like I said above, it may well have been "fair use" but as I tried to point out, TaxAlmanac's policies are stricter. I guess the idea is, the simpler the policy, the better, particularly when the outside legal standard is subjective and there's nobody vetting every post.

Again, thanks for helping out, and if you believe that the site policy should be changed, then please contact User:Tdoyle, at Intuit. (Their lawyers were presumably the ones who figured that the policy as written was the best way to protect a forum that is user-driven, and by non-lawyers, for the most part.)

Trillium 05:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

FBAR

Thanks for your input; this just came up with a client and it is NOT my area of expertise. Haven't had a chance to do any research, but I saw the thread and thought I'd ask. If I find anything regarding partnerships, I will let you know. Belle 20:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

So, I would treat the difference between premium paid and encashed value as ordinary income in 1040, and not do a PFIC form.

The country in this case is India and the life insurance had a 3 year premium paying term. $2000 each year. The policy was taken in India for tax benefits in India and was redeemed once the three year period was over and the taxpayer returned to the States.

I am guessing the excise tax on the premium will be exempt from tax due to the India- US treaty and I do not have to do a Form 709.

Thanks again

Regards,

Priya

"Thread hijacking" et al

Hi, MP: In case you didn't already see the note in Luke's discussion (the one about the FTB's NOL suspension/instructions), I moved a couple of your posts, and also Joan's post that you responded to. You can find them here: Discussion:Corporation formed in Nevada owner living and working in California, in the chat forum.

That was partially in response to Luke's unhappiness about the thread possibly being hijacked - we're all too happy to follow tangents on this site, so I can see the validity of his complaint - but mainly because the general consensus of the members is that there shouldn't be any political comments or asides on the tax forum.

I almost left you a note about political comments/asides in the past actually - I'll have to go back and see if I can find what post that was on. Sometimes, even innocent-sounding comments, meant as jokes/rhetoricals, can trigger responses that lead to a full-on political debate. And since there's no full-time moderator, we try to limit even the joke stuff to the chat forum. Of course, stuff slides by that we don't notice until the reaction starts, so if you see something that you think might create a stir, please leave a note on my talk page (or on Kevin's).

Anyway, for thread hijacking the members eventually try to get the conversation back to the main topic, unless it was considered pretty much resolved before the hijack. For political comments, though, those will get moved to chat; sometimes the entire discussion has to be moved for expedience or because it's a lost cause. (Obviously, the original posters aren't always happy about that, which is another reason to try to avoid letting the conversation drift in the first place.)

Please let me know if you would like more info on this. And feel free to carry on the conversation with Joan, or whoever else joins in, since the posts are now in Chat.

Thanks,

Trillium 23:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

editing to add: I believe the comment I was going to show you, as something to be avoided in general, was your "We have idiots in Congress" line in Discussion:Another Nasty FBAR Question. A throw-away line, perhaps, but not integral to your point and likely enough to spur others to comment in kind, if they see it. So to the extent you can hold back... it'd be appreciated. Thanks. Trillium 23:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Site slowdown

The site does sometimes get slower during extremely busy periods (like March) due to the number of people participating. Number of pages available on the wiki doesn't really seem to make a difference...but we can check into that.

The real problem right now seems to be that the site is being targeted by spammers who have found a way to bypass the standard protections against robo-account creation. Intuit is working on it, but right now some portion of the site's bandwidth is being hijacked just to handle the unwelcome activity. This was increasing gradually across the past week or so, and really went into overdrive late last week.

Trillium 20:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for echoing my overly blunt sentiments about "naked conclusions"

I was feeling sorta bad for having stuck that in there - and I was tempted to edit it out - but you chimed in favorably, and now I feel less bad about what I said! For which I thank you!

[And I like the term "naked conclusions." Where does it come from?]

Spell Czech

Partner as Employee

You can search for my "old" discussion with JR1 where I cite a court case that the judge states there maybe situations where a partner is also an employee.

RoyDaleOne 15:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but...

...if we wait for well-reasoned arguments based on cited authority, to the exclusion of "naked conclusions" and the like, you and I would be the only contributors!! And all answers would be unassailable. [chuckling out loud]

Spell Czech

Need your help

Michael, I have a family matter regarding FBAR's that I'd prefer not to post generally on Taxalmanac. If you are available for a fee, I'd like to enlist your aid for an initial consult and if the outcome of my actions are unsatisfactory, possible representation for my family/clients. I'm traveling right now and will be back July 4 to provide you with details. Thank you, HowardS

Your post to the "TT defense" discussion...

Your post didn't seem to have anything to do with the Bartlett case, which is the current thread in that discussion. In fact it seemed to be pretty much just political commentary, or a rehash of the old news about Tim G.

Since political commentary is not allowed in the tax forum, I had two choices - move the entire discussion to chat, or move your post to a more appropriate discussion. It seemed a shame to lose the good tax commentary, so I've removed your post from the current discussion.

I'll come back with a link to the discussion where I've pasted your post once I find the right place for it. It'll be a chat discussion - probably one of the many that we had back when the Tim G controversy was actually current news.

Please avoid political stuff in your posts in the future, except on the chat forum.

Thanks,

Trillium 21:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link

I've moved your post here: Discussion:Treasury Secretary, Taxes and the IRS. Note, my adding the post to that discussion won't actually bump it to the top of the chat index, so if you were hoping for responses to your commentary about how the TT defense works for some (although apparently not for Bartlett, Lam, et al), then you would need to add another post to the discussion I've linked.

Trillium 21:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You asked "why move it..."

1. Because you can't post political stuff on the tax forum.
2. Because the Geithner thing was old news - discussed at length here back in 2008-2009, which is where I found the discussion to move it to.
3. Because the current thread on the discussion was about how the TT defense doesn't actually work - as Bartlett found. Even the case discussed in the original OP on that discussion, worked only because of the circumstances discussed concisely in post #2. Your post started out "another good defense is..." which implied that the TT defense actually works. As the discussion you posted to proves, it does not.

But if you really want to revisit 2008, 2009, or whenever it was that this was actually current news and a hot topic, please feel free to start a brand new discussion about Geithner, and introduce your personal nickname for what everybody else calls "the TurboTax defense." Just make sure you start it on the CHAT forum, which is the only place that kind of stuff is going to fly. Or just put Geithner into the search box, and pick out the chat discussion you like the best to add your post to.

Trillium 22:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Also - of course we all recall what Tim Geithner did

That's why these cases get posted!

I just re-read the note you left for me, which implied that I might not realize that there's a connection between Tim Geithner and the TT defense. It made me wonder if, when you posted to that discussion earlier today, you were under the mistaken impression that people on this site don't understand that connection, either. These cases involving "the TT defense" are getting posted here because of Tim Geithner.

These more recent discussions don't even bother to namedrop because - to quote Death&Taxes from back on January 22, 2009 - "We beat the Geithner horse to death, and rightly because he will be in charge of enforcing the laws. But sometimes we sound so sanctimonious...."

Trillium 23:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

additional question

Hi MP,

Thank you for your informative comments on my questions. (This is about the questions I've posted on Nov 13th under the title 'International tax question'.)

After reading your comments, I've added two additional questions at the end of the post. Would you please revisit the post and share your comments on the new questions?

Regarding my new question#2, I can understand from your comments that claiming non-resident status would not raise any estoppel issue. But what is not clear to me is on the W-9 side. If she submitted W-9 and surrender her greencard in the same year, and later claim non-resident status for that year, could it constitute perjury? (because she stated that she is a US person in W9 under the penalty of perjury.)

Also, if she submitted W-9 and surrender her greencard in the same year, but does NOT claim non-resident status for that year (file as a full year resident), could it constitute perjury?

Thank you again your help.

Hapblu

Hapblu 06:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

residency termination

Dear MP-JD-LLM,

May I ask a question regarding residency termination? Thank you in advance for taking your time to help me.

The taxpayer surrendered her greencard in 2012, did not visit US afterwords, and had no US-sourced income in 2012. She had her green card less than 8 years.

If she does not file her 2012 tax return, could IRS claim that her US tax residency continues in 2013 and beyond because she did not file the return or did not notify IRS her status change?

From §7701(b)(1)(A)(i), §7701(b)(6)(B) and pub 519, her tax residency terminates on the 12/31/2012 since she does not claim close connection to a foreign country. I just like to double-check with you whether there is some other codes or regulations that may extend her tax residency.

Hapblu 04:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. My 'user talk' page is fixed.

Gift

Mike,

What's your email address? Mine is ckenefick@carolina.rr.com

Shoot me a blank email and I'll respond.

Ckenefick 21:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)ckenefick

Canadian citizen with US investments -- Referral?

Hi Mike,

I recently posted this thread: Discussion:Canadian_citizen_never_reported_US_rental_income.

My client has asked me to help him find a referral for his family members that need some help. According to your user page, you do handle US/Canada issues. Would you be able to assist my client's family members with BOTH their US issue and their Canadian issue?

If so, I would like to give you a call for a quick interview before I pass along your contact information.

Please let me know. Thanks.

--Wiles 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

FBAR - 3520 - 3520A

I posted the following question to the board, but haven't received any responses. You seem to be one of the most knowledgeable posters on this topic and was hoping you could comment.

I am looking for input for the following situation. Australian by birth, worked there for about 10 years, contributed to Australian Superannuation fund while working there. Moved to the US in 1999. Became US Citizen several years ago.

Recently became aware of the FBAR requirements, she has the Superannuation account, the max value in any year was $32,000, she also had a bank account max value in any year of $13,000. The bank account was opened by her parents when she went to college, they would put money into the account for her and they had signature authority. When she moved to the US she removed all but about $100 from the account, she left small amount just to cover account fees while she was out of the country. When the parents realized that she wasn't moving back to Australia, they began using the bank account as if was theirs, depositing money and paying bills from it. The daughter wasn't aware of this. The bank account did earn interest, but the most in any year was $0.83. The tax on the interest would have been at most $0.21 in any year. The bank statements were sent to her parent's address.

I called the OVDP hotline and was told she did not need to enter the OVDP program, but to submit the FBARs to the address in Detroit, and note FAQ #17, and attach a note explaining why the reports were filed late. The lady indicated that the interest amount was so small it wouldn't matter.

Based on the searches I have done here, it also seems that she needs to file both the 3520 and 3520A because of the Superannuation account.

My questions:

1. Do you agree that she would be ok with not entering the OVDP, and sending in the FBARs noting FAQ #17.

2. Same question but relating to the 3520 be filed late, and FAQ #18.

3. The Superannuation account statements only report beginning Investment Value for the period, ending Investment Value for the period, Number of Units, and Withdrawal Unit price for beginning of period and end of period. No interest or dividend earning are listed. Am I correct in assuming there is no taxable income from the Superannuation fund, only unrealized capital gains?

4. Do amended 1040s need to be filed to report the pennies of interest if the Superannuation account doesn't have taxable income?

5. The 3520A asks for Foreign Trust Income Statement and Balance Sheet. Where do you get this information, she has nothing that provides that information, I have searched the internet and came up with nothing.

6. The 3520A also asks for Trust documents to be submitted with the 3520A, what documents are they looking for for an Australian Superannuation account. The trustee is BT Funds Management.

Thanks for any help you can provide. Tax Almanac name: AlBe email: finkdanny@gmail.com AlBe 18:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

End of the forum

You may have heard by now that the Tax Almanac ( www.taxalmanac.org ) web site forum is permanently closing its doors effective June 1. Perhaps you have seen the pink bombshell “Important Service Announcement” when logging in.

Long-time TA user ChrisV2 has volunteered to set up a new website where TA users may continue the discussion. The site is up and running now and has an active base of contributors.

We invite you to take a look www.taxprotalk.com and join your fellow TA refugees.

Frankly (TA member and new member of TaxProTalk)