User talk:PVCC-CCIFP
From TaxAlmanac
This page is where you can leave a message for PVCC-CCIFP. PVCC-CCIFP 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 PVCC-CCIFP, this is your page. Feel free to edit your discussion page to add or remove anything you'd like.
Contents |
On your question
If I was an independent CPA or firm, I could care less whether someone in your position was a CPA. I would guess that the larger contruction firms might advertise for a CPA for such positions on the assumption that both the outside an inside accountants could speak GAAP to each other. If you already speak that language, I'm sure an outside accounting firm will recognize that very quickly regardless of your designation.
As far as outsiders which may rely on an FS prepared by an employee, no matter what kind of credential he might or might not have, I would give it the weight it deserved: in other words, the FS was not prepared by an independent party, therefore, it has less weight.
Have you tried posting this on the accounting page? If not, you might want to ask Trillium if he will move it over there for you after a few days. CrowJD 21:35, 22 October 2009 (CDT) ______________________________________________
Thank you for your input.
Dan Dan 01:17, 29 October 2009 (CDT)
On Bolding
Hey Dan, how's that bolding, now? I don't know how to describe how to do it other than "highlight what you want to do it to, and then click on what you want to do to it." Harry Boscoe 10:32, 29 October 2009 (CDT)
Actually...
Actually, the screwed up bolding is because I screwed up in the editing... Wanna try again? Harry Boscoe 09:38, 30 October 2009 (CDT)
CCIFP
You are very welcome! Thank you for the suggestion.
- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 08:36, 5 February 2010 (CST)
Thanks for the catch
I've edited the Sec. 36 mash-up based on my (newly revised) reading of HR 5623, which does vary a bit from yours; specifically, a longer portion of (h)(2) was changed in HR 5623 if I've got the right version (same as what you'd linked to).
It now agrees w/Douglasholbrook and DaveFogel's interpretation, which R2 has now also acknowledged to be correct, rather than being more consistent with R2's original statement. Clearly I read HR 5623 too quickly when I simply replaced Jul 1 with Oct 1 in the first edit for HR 5623.
However, since you were expecting a different revision, please let me know if you still think it's incorrect.
Thanks,
Trillium 00:15, 21 July 2010 (CDT)
