User talk:Spell Czech

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 Spell Czech

This page is where you can leave a message for Spell Czech. Spell Czech 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 Spell Czech, this is your page. Feel free to edit your discussion page to add or remove anything you'd like.

Leave a message for Spell Czech by clicking here


If the REAL GrammarPolice is the one

without a space in his name, then whom is the real SpellCzech?????? Hmmmmm.... SpellCzech 19:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Help for those with a multiple personality disorder:

Sometimes you have to log-out twice (I can't explain it) from your minor personality (don't click 'remember me' when logging in as the minor) and then make sure that your major personality is showing at the very top of the screen to ensure that the proper personality gets credit for the appropriate post. Otherwise, we will all be editing our own tildes. Ubiquitous

 "Deputy Dawg"


In theory, you/I/we shouldn't have to update the link, as the system is supposed to redirect a user from the original discussion name to the new one. However, along with the other issues you and others have experienced lately, the auto-redirect hasn't always been working as it should, lately. Often, it'll strand you on a mostly-blank page that just says something about redirect and gives a link to the later version. That page should just be in the background, but alas, sometimes it wants attention.

So I've been a bit more careful lately to update any recent uses of the old name. Past uses, well, if somebody can't figure out to click on a link that is likely to be >50% of the content on a page, then maybe they don't deserve to see the real re-named discussion!

Trillium 20:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PS - and your test area test shows the other oddity with the redirect. If it does take you to the real re-named discussion, what the heck is that reply box doing at the top??? Tim's looking into it, recognized the issue right away, but it's lower priority than fixing the log-in/permission error problems, as it should be. Trillium

Trial and error

Like all of life!

The redirect - if it works - does at least take you to the right discussion. But that reply box will strike many as "wrong" and they may not scroll down for the rest.

Trillium 20:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that it isn't spelled

refrigPBRerator? SpellCzech 20:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I keep my extra letters in the mail box.

I keep my beer in the refrigerator. SpellCzech

Well, when it isn't in my stomach. Notice I didn't write 'extra beer'. There never is any 'extra', there always seems to be not enough.


How does his wife feel about that? Trillium

Didja know -

Did you know that this is apparently the third time that the "national tree" has had that happen to it? Seems like a dubious honor, if you ask me!

Trillium 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


I was a bit nervous as it reads like an internal, and thus non-public [generally], e-mail. Plus I thought Pheobe (over in the LC) should get credit for getting it, however she did. Otherwise, though, most .gov sites allow free copy/paste.

Trillium 18:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dark in there?

I am sure this'll probably be corrected to say "small CPA firm" before too long, so I didn't want you to miss it: the 20:26 edit of this talk page. All I can think of is, "is it dark in there?," a la Groucho Marx, "...inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."

Trillium 20:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I love your humor, and as always

thanks for the correction. Doug 22:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Doug MDoug 22:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


For being my personal "spell checker"Belle


...not much to be done, seems to me. He's done so much digging to get that deep in the hole, the only "kind" action possible is to refrain from kicking dirt down in on him. Trillium

Partnership Sale

SC - Think I could email you this crazy K-1 just for kicks?

Jeff-Ohio 16:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a lucky man SC

You were certainly born into the right language in which to exercise your avocation. Carry on!CrowJD 18:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

correction appreciation

Thank you for correcting "lightning." I use Firefox, which has a spell checker, so I don't know how that one slipped by.

Ah yes, "lightening." Good point.Natalie 00:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Natalie

Did they make freeze dried beer for the astronauts?

perhaps that would be a step towards e-mailing. And if e-mailing won't work, a fax might. Thanks! Kevinh5

My Tingler Tingled, Too!

re: When you mentioned "financial planner" and "buy an annuity" in the same paragraph, my tingler started to tingle.

I could have said "Tingled, Two" or Tingled, To" and given you something to correct me on, but I thought you might welcome a rest! ; )

Thanks for your comment on that...I feel the same way! I'm in the precarious position of having a really good health insurance broker as a client, and she sends me some nice referrals. But, her boyfriend and business partner is on the life insurance/annuity end of things, and he likes to run the tax ramification of his ideas thru (through, for you!) me. So, because of the connection, I feel obligated to do a little research and give him my best answer, even though I'm not necessarily behind what he's attempting to do. And, it gives me the opportunity to see what the real world is thinking and learn a little something along the way. No money in my pocket, mind you, but that's not always what life is about.  ; )

Freeze dried beer


Had in mind...

...many of his theoretical (one hopes) questions lately have circled around one particular area. I imagine that what he had in mind might well be elucidatable from a review of his user history? (I know, I'm making up words, but isn't there some sort of snarkiness exception for vocabulary usage?)

Trillium 16:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Very nice!

Those are three very good ones. We should say them for our new dictionary. They are dictionarilicious.

Trillium 17:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea

But for the wrong reason. Beer is always a good idea! And maybe your not-new word just needs to be used more often, so that it gains confidence and starts selling itself!

Trillium 17:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very kind words!

I try to stay busy...I like to have a bunch of different kinds of places where I'm contributing (aka working, participating, hanging out in the sub-subbasement, etc.); it tends to keep one from becoming too important in the scheme of things.

Trillium 17:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What a dispicatudidity

that some people can't use common English in a functionalositicous manner. Kevinh5

jes speculatin'

Figured this was a correction of her first, made it worse, so what else but another? Before long she'll have a series, which will lead to a book and a talk show. That's how we do it!


For removing the apostrophe in my post on Tom's "I feel stupid" thread. I need to proof read more carefully before submitting my final answer :-)Belle

Not likely....

I'm a decent proofreader; I can usually find anything misspelled. I was taught to read backwards, so you see the words rather than the context. My problem is then determining the correct spelling without looking it up. Once I see it wrong (or think I see it wrong...), I'm ruined. I do admit English wasn't my best subject in school. "Seperate" and "thier" are two of my 'favorites' :-) Belle 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonnie Lee article

I never heard back from Bonnie Lee. I emailed her directly about my concerns and her article of June 30. I strongly suggested to her that her advice about passive losses and retirement contributions were wrong.

I did not go into specific detail about code sections, etc. I felt that war could not be won with an email. Doug 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Doug MDoug 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Link Award

You are welcome for the link. While both are good with an ice cold beer or four, I'd rather get a box of sausage links. That would provide much more enjoyment and less frustration.

Link Award


--Wiles 13:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He's asking about interest

on a special assessment (let's say sewer improvements), not a tax itself. Kevinh5

Ironman tweak

Aloha Irving, I didn't catch your tweak, and don't mind that you did. I made an error though in the swimming part - it was only 2.4 miles, some other event must be 12 miles. Either way, I would drown doing that. Actionbsns 19:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Security breeches

I am imagining these being an updated form of a chastity belt, perhaps? You can see it in context, here: Discussion:Efiled return + stolen refunds‎. Unless somebody edits it first!

Trillium 02:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

non sequitur


Sale of Building

Hey SC - Happy NY.

Any cahnce you could look at my MMLLC building sale post (your sweet spot)....

Would be GREATLY apprecaited as always.


Jeff-Ohio 00:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


Yo...thanks for the note. There's a few of us up to speed on the 163 issue, and then a few on the periphery...and most that are clueless. I would really like to see this issue explored on an academic level in a tax publication. I'd write it myself if I had the time...maybe your up for it?

Ckenefick 23:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)ckenefick


Let's hope they are permanent. I've been seeing a few things that seem different, but I wasn't aware of anything going on from the tech side. They must be able to slide that stuff in while we're sleeping....

Trillium 02:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thinking of you



Every time I misspell a word

the errorists win. Kevinh5

golf game

If my tax returns looked like my score card I'd be serving 10 to 20 in the Big House. HowardS 00:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither confirming nor denying

From what I understand the correct term is fraternity, not that the rental place is one mind you.

Fsteincpa 20:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


No one likes the french. The Greeks are at least honest and upfront about things.


Did I misspell your moniker? Sorry if I did! Szptax 01:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

edit or message?

I received an email that you changed something on my user page. Did I have a typo? I cannot find the change. Uhoh... Szptax 21:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bang to rights!

"Bang to rights" means "guilty" or "caught red-handed." Inaccurately in your case. After careful consideration I've no doubt you would shame us all within five minutes of looking at our rules.

The English youth have regressed to their neanderthal roots and reintroduced grunting and snorting. Where I was raised slang rivaled proper English. As a young child; for example, I referred to the "phone" as the "dog" (dog and bone). I can only assume if we had a dog at the time I would have referred to it as the "cherry" (cherry hogg).


A better person

Well, perhaps not a better person; but you have improved my spelling and my grammar (hopefully). You know that post was a "love" dig, right? Belle 01:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Promises, promises, promises

Let me know when you're headed my direction <w> (assuming I survive this tax season; it's been a brutal one so far due to staffing problems). Belle

Not buried...

Clinton. Bush. Bush. Obama. Or did you only ask for 3? Trillium

Names: ah..........actually, I only named four.

Pres question:

Somehow, I trampled all over Trill's answer. Sorry.

I appreciate the note you sent me.

I only named 4 Pres.

Phil (nmrnbtw)

DID YOU: DIDN'T YOU: and other negative or double negative responses:

Since you are the expert in grammer. I have ask this on some english boards, and have received various responses:

You are on the witness stand, charged with murder. The prosecuter asks you:

Didn't you kill red robin?

YES, must mean yes I did not. To break it down, did I?: with a negative (n't): then a positve (yes).

NO, must mean, no I did not. To break it down, did I?: with a negative (n't): then with another negative (no).

So, my question is, why is the outcome the same (ie; no murder), but in the real world, an answer of YES, would amount to a confession or murder; as in YES, I DID ?

PHIL (nmrnbtw)

The QJV legislation

I see you already put this on the list of "things to do after 4-17-12". I *think* that might be what you put there... Harry Boscoe 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there truly such a thing

As a good accountant at this time of the year? Absolutely nothing they'd be able to get me out here in booneyville.

Wondering though, where the good accountant comment came from as I believe that conversation was a few years ago.

Actually had a guy who believed their pitch and paid for the lead and I put the proposal in and didn't win because they needed a larger firm for name recognition purposes. I've always told the sales pitch guys that if they are that sure, then I'd glad give them 25% of all revenue they generate for me. Not one ever took me up.

What part of Joisey? My daughter is in Newark, attending Seton Hall Law. Tax Law is a required subject there because the Dean is a tax attorney. Told her that after that class she can do all my research for me. Brother is down in Brick.

Some Yankee games in the near future, for sure.

Fsteincpa 19:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Day late and a message adjustment short.

Yeah, I saw that after it was fixed. Sorry for the confusion, even if it wasn't my fault.

Fsteincpa 22:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very curious......

How would Spell Czech or Grammar Police carry on a conversation on a walkie-talkie? Over. Could they end a sentence with 'over'? Over. Kevinh5

whoops on the SS-4

Czech, thanks for your help on my recent post about hubby and wife who erroneously set up a MMLLC. Question: Whats the best way to handle this with the IRS? Should the client call IRS and simply explain they checked wrong box on the SS-4, or is a letter required? Thanks again Anchorman 22:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Anchorman


So... you're a little older than me. I was born in the 50s... you were surfing then. That makes you about 10 years older, but not too old to hit the curl still!!! I'm in 23320, by the way, about 15 miles from Sandbridge. Which you wouldn't recognize today. I did live in 23456 when I first moved here, however, about 20 years ago.

Serious question: I'm not clear on what specific action your would take with this little client problem I have. How do I proactively help them make it a SMLLC when it's already registered as a MMMLLC? Is there a form to file? Do I amend 1040s and make sure the Tax ID is on the Schedule C? Please specify, Surfer Spell Czech Dude!  :)

Anchorman 14:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Anchorman


Yeah, I think he read the post, had no clue, and rattled off something reflective of the cluelessness.

Ckenefick 20:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)ckenefick

Moving up

I'm moving up the class scale with a British computerised spell checker. CrowJD 13:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


Spell, thanks for the comments. No, I have not read the Google study, but I may be able to find it if I Google it:-) Thanks again, and fight the good fight. Podolin 00:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Google book

Thanks and thanks. I'll take a look. Podolin 01:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If and only if

Spell, in this Discussion:Don't mess with 170(f)(8), you argued, correctly in my opinion, that the needed language was "if and only if". (I also opined there that your argument would likely lose in a serious case on the issue). Then, in this Discussion:Real Estate Professional Designation on Joint Return, you suggested that the "if and only if" language of Sec. 469(c)(7)(B) was probably not needed. Wouldn't the logic of your 170 point apply equally here? That is, if the taxpayer meets the stated requirements in the way described, fine and dandy, but there are no other ways to meet the requirements, thanks to the "if and only if" language. I tried to explain how another way would have been possible without that language, but I did not get either agreement or disagreement. It all has to do with the switch in 469 language from "persons described" in (a)(2) to "taxpayer" in (c)(7)(B). Your thoughts as a language maven would interest me.

SpellCzenh, yes, I have always felt that one of the shortcomings of TaxAlmanac is the propensity of some to merely give an unsupported opinion. Let's face it. What we need when confronted with a difficult issue is substantial authority. Even the citing of a PLR or GCM may provide a seed for research. However, a naked opinion is totally useless. Or, as we used to say in New York, that and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

If etc

Thanks, Spell. 'Nuff said, for now. Podolin 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Impressive dude?

Thanks, but I'd rather my tax knowledge was as impressive.

Now, on another matter, you posted this on the General Chat discussion regarding obesity: There's only two doctors working on this? That's appalling! There's or there are?


Wait, wasn't it Yogi Berra who said, "Never a borrower nor a loaner be"? Or was that my car dealer when he did not have a car for me when mine was in for service? Podolin 12:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem

However, since that OP seems to have some reading comprehension issues, particularly where the word "deleted" is involved, I am going to further revise my post!

In any case, this doesn't meet the "saved the day" standards. Just wait; that discussion is sure to go downhill from here!

Trillium 22:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Stinkin' Badges

Actually, she only has two (and I put one of them on there!) To paraphrase SNL, "What's up with that ? But we know her true worth. Belle 22:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Spell,

CG = Controlled group

Thanks, Capt

Here's one.

"wheppin" and "sammich"... Here is one which is very common down here: fixin'. I am fixin' to do this or that. I've looked for the word in many of Shakespeare's plays, but to no avail. Let me know if you ever run across the history of this word. Col. Crow PollyAdler 07:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

An enjoyable book

The Story of French, Jean Benoit-Nadeau, Julie Barlow. St. Martins-Griffin, 2008.

I checked this out at the library, and even though you are our English expert and historian, I think you would truly enjoy this book, and you'll probably find yourself shaking your head up and down in agreement while reading the first part of it.

The French (including even the average Frenchman) take their language seriously. According to the book, they may sometimes speak in slang, but the next day they will be right back correcting each other's grammar. It appears to be a national past-time, and even an addiction with them. It takes effort to achieve purity is the motto.

There are some interesting observations about English speakers in the book as well. Take care! PollyAdler 07:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Passion is the word I was looking for.

No doubt the word "addiction" is overused in American discourse. What I meant to say is that the French have a passion for maintaining the purity and precision of their language.

Words such as "addiction" and "obsession" sprang out of the over-active imagination of a handful of German psycho-babblists, sometimes referred to as psychoanalysts or quacks. Men who have shrunk the heroic vision of mankind down to questions of whether the man-child got through his first bowel movement without extensive mental trauma; or of whether a little boy was in love with his momma but feared his daddy enough to stay away from her.

We have been made into little men by this crowd of brain savants and brain manipulators.

The high priest of modern man is the psychologist! There is no doubt of it. You don't go to the Church any more to confess your sins, you sit on the psychologist's couch and confess your addictions and obsessions, and I don't know what else.  :)

Passion is the better word. It appears that I have been compromised by the psycho-babble like may others before me. Old habits are hard to break. PollyAdler 17:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't resist send you an advance copy

Further addition to your Dec.7 comment.  :)

And we did declare war.

"And here we are in the year 2012, men and women of America. The strong-backed! The independent free souls! The very salt of the earth. All farce. All lies. We have been made to fear our own shadows. We'll pay any price to be protected from the boogy bear under our bed (that may be booger bear, I don't have time to look it up).

The government has got us all by the belly button and it won't let go. We don't resist our chains today, we beg for them. Send the drones over my house too, Uncle Sam. Show how much you love me. I need you. Protect me.

So yes, they did declare another war in 2001, and we've defeated us."

I've got to get out of here. I am supposed to be leaving town today for Thanksgiving, and here I am exercising my...passion. PollyAdler 17:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

One tiny revisison

The strong-backed! The independent free souls! Salt of the earth and of the Pilgrims' bountious table.

(I know the correct word is "bountiful", but I take the writer's privilege and use "bountious" because it sounds better.)

Bountious-2 syllable; Table-2 like the cradle of the ages. Bountiful-4; Table-2... jars the listener out of the the descent into trance.

I am pronouncing it as bounchuss(2), and not bounteeuss(3).

Once you have them properly hypnotized, then you smash them upside the head with: All farce. All lies.

I'm sick, and I'm hungry for some turkey so I need to be getting out of town.  :) PollyAdler 18:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor edits

I set my default to always have "this is a minor edit" checked, back at a time when we were moving a lot of old discussions over to the consumer forum. It turned out that quite a few of the old-timers had set their preferences to be notified of new posts/activity on those old discussions, and so there was some consternation over why they were notified of a change, but yet when they opened up the discussion they couldn't tell what had changed, etc. My hope was that "minor edits" wouldn't cause those notifications to be sent out... I can't actually remember at this point whether or not I ever tested that theory.

Then, I forget to uncheck it when I actually want something to be seen as other than minor. Whoops.

Trillium 23:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I know better.

I know better than to argue with a member of the Academy. :)

Existential Import etc.

I'm a bit stressed tonight, so to relax, I thought I'd read your recommended dissertation. I got to page 3. I am impressed that you have mastered this. I won't even try. But thanks for reminding me what a lousy education I received. Podolin 02:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your, you're, etc.

He's such a smart guy, and clearly doesn't care whether he's typing your or you're... he seems to use them almost interchangeably, or at random.

And if you need something quite a bit more frightening to contemplate this evening, check out User talk:Roxxy2300. Boy, I hope Rox doesn't figure out how to post that question on the forum, since tempers already seem to be pretty high, and we don't need something like that to fan the flames.

Trillium 05:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion:Closing Sole Proprietorship

Spell: Discussion:Closing Sole Proprietorship includes a post by me (at this moment, it is the next-to-last post). I'd be grateful for your input on that post. I know without doubt that what IRS means is that the test should be made on a taxable-year basis. It is not really a tax issue. What I wonder is whether the published guidance clearly says that. What do you think?

Happy new year, and thanks in advance. SINCE I THANKED YOU IN ADVANCE, THAT ENDS IT, UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

Len Podolin 16:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My vote

is that we continue to direct the professional preparer with a basic question to Pub 17. Shame on them for wasting our time. Kevinh5 22:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, while I do understand

that some people want the cheap, dirty, and very quick responses to their questions, I have found that personally, I have learned much more by those long-winded answers, especially those that point out the Rev. Rul. or TC or District Court cases. If there's anything I have learned from Dennis, for example, it's that the easy questions about trusts and estates always have complicated answers, and when you answer a complicated question with an easy answer, it is most likely wrong. Kevinh5 23:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: navel dwelling... *

...or going deeper into a topic than an OP may actually have needed.

I think you are referring to things such as a question coming in that is beyond Pub 17 or most people's search skills, but *is* able to be addressed fairly succinctly by someone who is "in the know" in a particular area. The person responding may well indicate assumptions they've made, or certain statements in the OP may lead to a particular response. It used to be that the discussion would just fade away once that response (or series of responses) had been received and the question seemed resolved.

What I think you're bringing up is that for the past year or so, those discussions seem to end up with follow-up posts from the regular responders. They spin-off from of the main question and add complexities or hypotheticals - or introduce assumptions or facts different from those in the OP - that raise interesting tax questions with little to do with the OP's original question.

I guess there are several possible issues with this, such as:

  1. If there's limited time for the regulars to be responding to questions, then maybe it'd be better if they were responding to actual questions and not to the hypotheticals (but I'd bet the regulars can make that choice for themselves relatively successfully!).
  2. The spin-off discussion is probably over the OP's head (or would seem to be, given their participation history), and I wonder sometimes whether the OP is left trying to follow along, not realizing that the first two (or whatever) posts were really all that the OP needed to resolve the question as posted in the OP.
  3. Sometimes the spin-off happens before the OP has gotten resolution, in which case they're forever doomed.

But I have no solution, and really see no need to intervene unless it all gets out of hand and real tax-pro questions that can't be resolved via the search box are left unresolved. At worst, the OP learns more than they actually needed (which Kevin kind of alluded to already).

So - I think I, too, have only vaguely described the problem and have offered no solution. But maybe I'm okay with that!

Trillium 01:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

* note the difference between my heading and "naval dwelling" - which is otherwise known as "a really big boat" and/or "a submarine."

You wouldn't think...

...that a navel hospital would really be able to find enough business in its declared specialized area.


I think that navel hospitals

abound in Florida. How else would we have so many navel oranges? Kevinh5 13:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Special K

I had Special K with extra protein (and a few thumbtacks)...but seriously, don't you think $400k salary is fair enough? I've gotta *believe* that you do...and that you just like to muddy the waters, Boscoe-style, just for the sake of muddying...

Ckenefick 15:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)ckenefick


Well, if you are seriously proposing to this attorney that all $2m should show up on his W2, when $400k might very well be acceptable and reasonable, we have $1.6m times 2.9% Medicare Tax, which equals $46,400. And, lest we forget the *brand new* 0.9% tax. This combined sum of tax, if invested and compounded, may very well grow into something much more...This would be a significant cost to the client. Client might not like it. Client might choose to put $400k on his W2. Client is an attorney. Client can go to Tax Court and represent himself...

The suggestion that we need to consider the issues here against the backdrop of a Schedule C filer is inappropriate. The better, more rationale suggestion is to consider it against the backdrop of an 1120 filer. The IRS has made it's bed with these 1120 cases...

Ckenefick 16:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)ckenefick


Would that it were so.

You obviously have a sick sense of humor. I mean it in the most complimentary way.


Shoot me your email address and I'll email Bojan to you.

I'm @

Ckenefick 15:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)ckenefick


Are you a ghost that will not reveal his e-mail address?

Don't worry I won't *share* it with anyone (other than the IRS).

Ckenefick 18:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)ckenefick

One sentence SB okay

(SB = Should be, in case that's not standard; maybe you'd rather see S/B as I was taught way back when in public accounting.)

I think you ought ot be okay with that. It wouldn't hurt to replace some of the words with "blah, blah" where they're not important to the joke. But that is pretty funny. Not just your usual transposition - it's elevated by the transpo/typo combo.

Trillium 18:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You might like this one (two?), too

Hawaii Dept of Taxation (thus no copy/paste prohibitions, yay!):

"At the Department of Taxation, we are committed to our mission. We welcome your input in our strive to continuously improve our services and making voluntary compliance as easy as possible"

The link is, but that crashed my browser the first time I opened it, so you might just want to take my word for it....

Trillium 20:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

They're everywhere!

Title of one of those little article blurbs you have to put up with to get your local weather info on "Winter Storm Marches From In Next Week" (from where again? Time travel?).

Trillium 21:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


I knew B didn't feel right; couldn't be bothered to stop and think since I was just foolin' around. Thx for the INT.

Trillium 23:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

At least I got the digits correct.

108 vs 180. I was only 72 away. Thanks, anyways. Kevinh5 22:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


Low-hanging fruit though it may be, I am proud of my post in response to Frankly's post on this Discussion:Undo 401(k) distribution? Podolin 01:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Committee Report

It is one big monster PDF. After all, it is the explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, i.e., essentially, the whole new Code. Here is the page. Nope, sorry, it won't copy and paste for me. Podolin 18:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


And I patched it up so neither of us, instead of both of us, looks as if he doesn't know what's happening... ["neither...looks...he..." Okay?]

Or is the question, for completeness, …["neither…both…looks…he…" Okay?] Anyway, I looked ever so briefly and found this blog It is interesting, though not authoritative.

I perfer the new

After thinking about it this morning I decided I actually liked the sound of Amicu better than I liked the sound of Amicus. I have now taken on a project (one of many I have going at present) to re-vulgarize the Latin tongue.:) Gazoo 22:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If and only if, etc.

In an ongoing thread Discussion:Just Stopping By...about Secs 7601 and 7602, a link is provided to a case in which the 9th Circuit said "They then argue that because only subsection (a)(2) describes how the IRS may obtain information, no other means of obtaining information is available to the IRS. We are not persuaded." In effect, the court is agreeing (with you!) that just because a Code Section says something is something, it does not necessarily follow that only that something is that something.

My reference, of course, is to Discussion:Don't mess with 170(f)(8) and Discussion:Real Estate Professional Designation on Joint Return, among others, wherein you have pointed out the "if and only if" flaw.

As the lady who just swam from Cuba to Florida says, "never give up."

Podolin 21:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It does exist

Else, how would my wife always know where I was and what I did?

By the way, my son deals in collectible cars. He has been looking for a nice 91 Mazda. I told him there is probably no such thing, but I'd ask around. Nothing over 300,000 miles, please.

Nilodop 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Your Mazda sounds a little too high class for my son. He usually buys and sells junkier cars. Wouldja take, say, 29k for it?

Please do not reply. I am too busy to read it.

Nilodop 02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


should hadda fyah? no, shoulda hadda fyah.

I too can't help myself.

And here I thought

that liquadation had something to do with four different liquids. Kevinh5

Prey tell

I will respond with this, from a vanity plate I once saw: UDAMAN

BTW, did the issue of Leap Year and March 17 get resolved to your satisfaction?

Nilodop 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Prey

SC, thank you for your kind deeds and words. Never fear, I have not, nor will I ever fall prey to this so-called "postmodernism", where anything goes. Intellectual laziness is what I call it. Even the Fauves, decadent as they were, had a plan. Yes, we are all decadent today by definition...we come into the world "objectified"--and all "objects" qua Mere objects, decay; decadence is our modern birthright or birthcurse I would say.

There is a right or wrong in most of the right things, and I am a respecter of the right or wrong of right and good things. I am torn by guilt as a result of my missteps, and this is how it should be. A man's self respect is to be judged by his guilts.

But, as I've said before, when I go to putting fingers to keyboard a deamon comes over me and taketh me where he (or it) will. Therefore, I am an innocent party to all this, but nevertheless I am torn by guilt. This is where man helps man is all I can say about it.

Never fear that in my soul I retain the great and implacable: NO!

Gazoo 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Yes, I already signed up. But thank you for the tip, I didn't want to miss it for anything in the world :-)

Lalva 19:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools