User talk:TexCPA

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 TexCPA


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

Leave a message for TexCPA by clicking here

Contents

RSU'S

Tex

Did not know if it was ok to import the link to the board. Here it is: --Solomon 20:55, 24 March 2007 (CST)

http://content.members.fidelity.com/products/stockoptions/rstockunitsfaq/0,,0,00.html

Legal fees

Thank you for the link to the article on Legal Fees. I am printing it out and highlighting the part I want to show my client. Thanks Kevinh5

TexCPA,

I have tried to read over IRS Code 172 and it is confusing. Can you give me some advice?

In 2003 a CPA doing my taxes had me file a Form 1045, Application for Tentative Refund. At the time, I had 1 primary residence and 1 rental house. She listed the two years prior on that form. I pretty much understand most of the forms that were used in my taxes and where the numbers come from, but this form confuses me. Because of multiple trips to combat zones that year and low income that military receives, I received all that I paid in for taxes that year. Additionally, the last form in the bunch for 2003 was a NOL Carryback Election. It says I “relinquish the entire carryback period with respect to the net operation loss incurred during the current tax year.” For 2004 and 2005, I did not see 1045 or any type of carryback or forward paperwork, but did buy a house in 2004 and 2005 so I had losses, but I guess not enough to generate one of these forms.

I moved in 2006 and had Jackson Hewlett do my taxes for 2006. 2006 was a little confusing as I was in the Air Force for the first half the year and retired the other half, moved to NJ with moving expenses paid by the Air Force, rented a house, started a full time job, started paying state income tax for the first time, bought a townhouse, got laid off of full time job, collected unemployment, and still rented my now 4 houses back in FL. As you can imagine, Jackson Hewlett charged me an arm and leg. Sadly, I helped a lot by leaning over the desk telling the guy what numbers he should put where. Any rate, I know most of this stuff and thought I can do it on my own. In doing 2007 taxes, I see Jackson Hewlett calculated that I had an unallowed loss of $9992. I am using H&R Blocks’ tax program and found a spot where I could enter in prior years losses. I now have an unallowed loss of $19,116.

What do I do with this number or loss? It is obviously going to keep on growing from year to year. What was the NOL Carryback Election that was submitted in 2003?

Thank you so much in advance for your help.

Frank Hosselkus

Talk about needless nonsense...

I can't understand why they would waste the time and effort to do that, but... Skasselea 17:17, 1 February 2008 (CST)

License expired

I know Tex. I have substantial tax training and CPE. However the last few years I have been lax in accumulating CPE hours. I am presently woring on getting 44 hours and should be done soon. I am not that proud of the CPA license anymore, however having had it sincce 1976, I guess I'll continue to follow the CPE rules, which really can be a sham. On line courses can be a joke, in my opinion the Board nver should have gone to on line CPE, it waters down the profession in my opinion. By the way, where did you see this?

removed your joke links

Yes, they're just jokes, but as you can see from some of the other discussions that have taken dangerous turns toward political arguments, there is just too big a risk that yet another tax discussion would end up being about something other than the question the OP asked.

I indicated in the note I left on your original post that I would move the links to another discussion, but on second thought, I'll leave it up to you to decide if there is actually an appropriate place for them. I'll paste 'em below so you won't need to go look them up again.

Trillium 12:34, 14 January 2009 (CST)


Your links: Regarding Palin [[1]]

Regarding Obama [[2]]

Response to your post to me

Tex, I already deleted the links, which is why I'd pasted them at the end of my other note. You had posted them in the Standard Mileage discussion - which I thought was odd as nothing about that discussion had been about either of the parties in your links. I wasn't offended, per se; I was just trying to stop one more discussion from going down the politics drain today. Hope that's okay.

And thanks!

Trillium

no offense taken

I think that Trillium thought the political stuff shouldn't be in several threads, maybe only one (about Liberty Tax Clowns). Go ahead and post them there if you want.

I wouldn't see the harm of having them there. Kevinh5

New language engagement letters

I really did mean thank you. After I re-read the post, I thought you and others might think I was being sarcastic.Natalie 18:57, 28 January 2009 (CST)Natalie

Thanks For Your Help

Thanks for the welcome, the good luck and the suggestion of Robert W. Wood. He sure looks he knows his stuff.Be4kids 08:22, 11 February 2009 (CST)

'ladder' speach

I submitted a video of my speach to my broker HD Vest for their Keynote Speaker competition. Unfortunately, they only got 6 entries and they wanted 8 so they postponed the competition for a year. Darn. A lot of work for nothing. Kevinh5

fraud

So are you a member of the ACFE? You referenced an article I just received notice of. Natalie 14:54, 19 February 2009 (CST)Natalie

IOTA

Hi Tex, Just now noticed your message (I don't usually get any).

I would agree that the only time I have had to deal with a Bar inquiry on the IOTA account, it was complaint driven.

Funny story. Criminal atty takes a gold necklace from client as retainer for client's case. Atty takes his very hot (and very much younger) girlfriend out to Ybor City (our local club district). Atty decides his gf would look mighty fine wearing said necklace and "borrows" it for the evening. Sometime during the ensuing festivities, necklace falls off and is lost. Client then shows up with cash for his retainer and wants the jewelry back. Ooops!

Complaint is filed and it soon becomes apparent that the Atty never really bills his trust account, he just takes money from it whenever he needs some. It is also discovered that he leaves billable money in trust at end of year so he doesn't have to report the income.

He was censored by the Bar and had to have his IOTA account audited by Florida Bar at his own expense for five years.

But that was my only experience with an actual Bar inquiry.

Never heard of the "disappearing" client costs that you described. That sounds a whole lot more serious than what my guy did. Sounds like it may have both civil and criminal consequences if it ever came to the light of day.

I would agree with you that the regulators are probably doing a lousy job of minding the store. Look what is coming out regarding SEC oversight of Madoff, this guy in Sarasota, FL, Stanford and the list goes on. The Love of Money is truly the root of all Evil, eh?

I am sure if you posted up in the general forum, all the "holier than thou" types that hang out here would jump all over the thread, which would probably turn into a discussion of how soon you should cut and run from the client. Me, I'm more pragmatic. If you are not the Captain, there is no need for you to go with the ship. I guess so long as the "extra" income from the "discounted" client costs is fully reported as fee income, I don't see where you personally should have any problem.

Hit me back if you want to talk some more.

1099C Discussion

Tex,

When you gave me the links a few days back in this discussion:

Another 1099C question with a twist

I forgot to answer your question. The client isn't not a qualifying widow as the husband died a couple of years ago. The bank dismissed the loan when they realized he had no estate and no assets. They sent her the 1099-C with her SS# and are saddling her with reporting it. As you said, we could always go for innocent spouse, but I would prefer the bank to cancel the 1099-C, first. Short of that, she's not getting too far with this issue.

Thanks again.

TomTaocpa 16:18, 28 February 2009 (CST)

Thank you TexCPA

I appreciate the kind words, they hit when I really needed them. Been a tough week trying to help a very tough client and one--if I kept track of my hours spent hand-holding--probably netted about $10 an hour. I have spent more on this client's return than most of my other client's combined. But they also referred a high-dollar business account and used me for Quickbooks setup. So it isn't dollar for dollar.


However, there is a human aspect to it as well. I am dealing with a lady about to give birth with a husband working in another State. They had to do this to survive and they are some of the kindest, nicest people you could ever want to know. They are people I would call friends and I really personally like them. The woman is as organized as I am but dealing with too much this year, especially given the free spirit husband that sort of does his thing and let's her worry with the details. It takes all kinds. I have a feeling they will find someone in their new State to do their return next year, which is fine. I wish them the best.


I am just starting out, this is my second year officially although I have been doing pro-bono returns for family forever. I started this for two reasons....first, to supplement my full-time job and keep my family afloat while my wife stays home with the kids but also to shield myself from ever being laid off again. I lost my job with a four year old and a baby on the way and it affected me. The first year, I had about 8 returns and this year I have 12 and hope to grab some more. I coaxed my clients in early this year and should have them all completed by the end of this week. I primarily help small business owners who are scared to death of taxes and Accounting make sense and I try to teach them instead saying 'give me your records and get out'. I am sure that I am under billing myself but not everything can be measured in billable hours. I do such things as free quarterlies for my clients who are having a baby...two this year. That's goodwill that can't be measured.


Anyway, I appreciate all the help. I can't ever say it enough honestly...I end all my posts with Thanks, Michael and I always mean it. I certainly take more from this board than I give right now but there's nothing worse than the rookie know it all. But occasionally, someone posts something that I can really help with and I eagerly do. I hope to have more of the latter than questions soon but that takes time.


Thanks, Michael

S Corp Oil & Gas

Tex, thanks for responding to my post regarding the Form 1120S entries for IDC etc. I was beginning to think that no one would. On the same general topic, I'm not certain how to handle oil & gas well operating expenses and tangible well equipment depreciation. Are the operating expenses included with the IDC or are they deducted at the S Corp level? Similarly, is the well equipment depreciated at the S Corp level or is the information passed to the shareholder to handle on his Form 1040? I apologize for these likely very basic questions, but, having never dealt with S Corps, I'm trying to learn something new. Thanks in advance for your help.

Dave Mason (DPMTax)

Addition...Tex, thanks a bunch for the MSSP on the Oil & Gas Industry. After reading that, I've got a better handle on what I need to do. Again, my gratitude is unending!!!!

Dave

Linking to copyright material OK

Generally, unless the info you want to link to specifically prohibits you from linking to it, a link to an article or other material that is under copyright is fine. It's posting the material itself here that's problematic. For a little more info, see TA policy page and TA T&C.

Thanks for thinking about it, though!

Trillium 10:51, 11 March 2009 (CDT)


(FYI, I'm referring to your post in the Casino discussion.)

Muscial instruments

Tex,


Sorry, I didn't see your message until now.....very sorry.

If I am not going to Section 179 them, I always depreciate musical instruments at 7 years.

Here is a good article: http://www.polyphonic.org/article.php?id=30&show=all

The IRS is pretty silent as to musical instruments but it seems to me there were some revenue rulings regarding them. I will keep digging.


Michael

Thanks TexCPA

Right now I am spending every possible waking moment studying for Part I of the EA.


However, odds are that I will or might be laid off from my company so that they can make just | | that much more to add to their billions. You have given me another option I hadn't really considered in the event that happens.


Thanks,

Michael

Deleted the 83(b) election

You recently posted two links to a blank discussion titled "83(b) election, reporting on W-2." The creator of that discussion had edited out their question - apparently changed their mind about asking - and I was about to delete the 83(b) discussion when you posted to it, so theoretically I shouldn't really delete it now. However, since the original question was about grossing up the W-2 (semi-related to the 83(b) election) and your links went to general info about the election, I figured I'd just transfer them here and if you want to post them to some other more general question about the election you won't have to go search them out again. That way, I feel better about deleting the discussion - we don't really need *it* in the archives, but at the same time your links aren't lost.

Here they are:

Thanks,

Trillium 14:23, 14 May 2009 (CDT)

fraud studies

Actually, I have been working so much on bicycle safety issues that I haven't spent any time studying in almost two months. I do need to get back to it, however.Natalie 04:31, 21 May 2009 (CDT)Natalie


Thanks

Just dropping in to say I appreciate the support on the forum.


Michael

I appreciate the comments

I am not sure what set him off other than the whole Renegade transcript issue but come on he can't truly be THAT upset about it. Perhaps he treats his clients as nicely as he treats others and doesn't have any left. I followed the procedures suggested on this board to get transcripts and was told by the IRS rep that the procedures had changed and I should just get a POA and go about downloading the transcripts through e-services. I thought I was clearing up misconceptions put forth on these boards and never thought anyone would be threatened by someone downloading transcripts from the IRS?!?


Getting into a fight with him--even if right--just makes me look bad...that much I concur with the administrators on this board. I don't believe that they should just look the other way and let him clearly violate the TOS unless they happen to agree with him. I think that if it were I attacking him, I would be banned by now. I don't understand the contradiction but whatever.


I am learning...the things I know, I know. The things I don't know, I am quickly learning. Never once have a put a client in jeopardy nor harmed a client--I have however, turned away clients whose issues were beyond my expertise. I don't believe in learning on the clients. Studying for the EA exam has taught me quite a bit about the small details of tax work. So he and others can like it or not but this is survival for my family so I am not stopping. It is as if many around here forget that they once didn't know squat and asked many of the same dumb questions and made the same dumb mistakes. I guess using his tactics, I should go around chiding CPA's and EA's when they post a question they should clearly either know or be able to find out. Of course I would never do that because I would rather help them and give back for them helping me. That's the point of all of this.


This is a great community and I appreciate the honest and sincere help you and others have been.


Michael

Code of Conduct

The Code of Conduct is enforced by the community. As an example, what you and AEM have been doing on the discussion you referenced is the enforcement of the Code of Conduct: you’re supporting one party and alerting the other that they’re out of line. For issues like this, I have no more power to enforce than any other member, so it wasn’t all that surprising to me that my attempt to calm down Uncle Sam, back when this originally erupted on another discussion, was unsuccessful.

Pushing the discussion back to its original purpose/topic is another way that the code of conduct is enforced, i.e., by example, and by moving people past the violation and the ensuing sidetrack. The posts from Wayne, Crow, and Natalie seem to be doing just that. So on this particular discussion, you could say that there’s been a combination approach for enforcing the code of conduct, and it seems to have been effective – the discussion is once again moving along without rancor.

Trillium 11:20, 23 May 2009 (CDT)

Always nice to have a friend

Thanks TexCPA....


I am working HARD to drive home section I of the SEE exam. I am running around 90% for the overall test with the lowest section (credits) being around a 82%. I plan to go through the exam 3-5 times again before the test and I am studying the note cards that have the rules behind the questions. Thus far I have probably spent 50-60 hours studying and will invest an equal or larger amount of time on the runup to the exam.


My main fear at this point is how the test changed. From listening to Kevin5h it sounds like it went from being straightforward questions to being CPA exam type questions. I am comfortable with the materials I have at hand (with the exception of being able to memorize long lists of criteria--I have RAM issues! :D). What is actually on the test is another thing....it sounds like Kevin5h and the others purposefully made the questions much more difficult. Sometimes the way you ask a question can make the difference in the result.


Oh well, it is scheduled and time will tell.


Thanks again for all the support. It is as if some people forget they ever were green and asking dumb questions.


Michael

Changed one of your links to a different source

Hi, Tex:

Wanted to let you know, I’ve changed one of the FBAR links you left for Axia today. I replaced your legalbitstream link to Notice 2009-62 with a link to the notice on TaxAlmanac’s site. I’ve found that legalbitstream links tend to “expire” or “time out” after a day or so, and so it seemed better to use a more permanent link in case she comes back later to reference the documents again.

BTW, for offsite links you only need one set of brackets – e.g., [www.irs.gov] vs. two brackets for internal links, i.e., [[Discussion:whatever]] or [[Notice 2009-62]]. Obviously it works fine as you’re doing it now, but in case you were wondering why sometimes your links showed up surrounded by brackets… that's why!

Trillium 12:35, 8 September 2009 (CDT)

legalbitstream

Legalbitstream is such a useful source, and sometimes there's no way to avoid linking there - court cases, old rev rulings, etc., that TaxAlmanac doesn't have. On things like that, if I've got time, I sometimes add some way for future readers to get back to the same place if they read the discussion after the link has timed out - like the name of the case at least, so they can go to the legalbitstream home page and do a search. I've always appreciated that you tend to "label" your links so clearly - even if the link timed out, it'd be easy enough to find the source document again.

I've never really tested just how long the links last - a day, three days, etc. But for sure they'll be gone after that! I've had the same issue with some of my links to legislation on Thomas.gov, too, but that seems to be a lot more random.

Doing fine and enjoying the slower pace of summer; hope you are, too.

Trillium 12:47, 9 September 2009 (CDT)

Copier

Thanks Tex,

I've seen this in the reliable catalog. I just checked the link you sent and did you see the reviews on it? Two of the reviews talked about the machine not handling the network scanning properly.

Have you used this machine before and do you think it can handle 40 to 60,000 copies a year?

Copier continuation

Tex,

That is my philosophy as well. I've always had a small practice before I bought this place and a decent printer and a small multi function for copies was all I needed. This place came with an older copy machine and networked printers. Annual servicing on the copier was about $350 but it was also an ancient machine. I decided to get a new one and went the lease route for the first time. Won't do that again. For the $2,300 a year I was spending I figure I could get two to three of the bigger disposable ones a year and still be ahead.

I had them take the leased one away and went to Office Max and picked up one of their Brother Multi Functions just to get me through until tax season. $250 with the one year warranty. I'll test this out, then get a larger one right before tax season and this one will become the back-up and also my personal printer/copier/scanner.

The thing I am going to track though is the cost of toner and incidentals. Hopefully, my migration toward paperless will continue and we will cut our copy/paper usage even further.


Fsteincpa 07:10, 10 September 2009 (CDT)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind message. I know what I've learned and what I don't know I try to learn. I have been doing taxes for over 14 years...got my EA after the first year. Before that I spent 20 years as a police officer in CA. When I retired I wanted a career I could bring home (to Hawaii) with me. Taxes seemed like the way to go. I truly believe one never stops learning and with the internet knowledge knows no boundries. My personal email is taxea@hawaii.rr.com if you ever need help from me. Laura

Did you change your user name from Tao to Tex?

My season is going well so far...not too busy yet. How about you.

I can be reached at taxea@hawaii.rr.com

Thanks for the note. Yes, I'm learning the ropes in dealing with folks. In the beginning, I didn't realize the potential impact of working with a client with such a large back sales tax burden. Considering my career path and what I know now, I don't want to touch the client with a ten-foot-pole! My post was more to glean some experiences, potentially. I realize it's tax season, so folks aren't really here to cite experiences right now. Regardless, thanks for your input. You are most definitely correct. My next task is getting insurance! GregHGregH 01:52, 24 February 2010 (CST)

Yeah, Buddy!

Yo Pappy soun like he know what's hap'nin'. My Pappy gots his together too. He tole me they's two kinda people: Whats reads and whats doesn't reads. An' you cain't tell th'one from th'other til it's too late! My Pappy very very wise. Been around.

If everyone were able - and willing, too - to read as much as you and I do/are, I worry that TaxAlmanac might lose its primary benefit: Helping those who won't read!

Sorta paternalistic, isn't it. LOL.

One PBR is never enough.

Harry Boscoe 11:10, 5 March 2010 (CST)

I hope you see this soon! We have an S corp client with nexus in Texas (wow, you guys must joke about that all the time!). It's a government contractor, so it provides services rather than manufacturing anything. It has a huge cost of goods sold, most of which is subcontractors. These aren't sales commissions, it isn't a leasing company, it doesn't have anything to do with real property, and what we want to know is whether we can exclude from income the payments made to individual (not corporate) subcontractors.

Thanks, Gail Gail 11:22, 7 April 2010 (CDT)

Sure, probably best in PM/BG rather than tax forum

Since it's sort of about how to handle the client, and about software, which are both mostly classified as practice management issues (as opposed to tax issues), you might get better results by posting the question in the Practice Management/Business Growth forum. But I see nothing wrong with the question in general.

Thx for asking.

Trillium 13:48, 6 August 2010 (CDT)

Ethics

I would contact the practitioner to let him/her know that his license is not showing up on the State Board Of Accountancy website as 'current'. It may be some oversight (we all forget to update address) that is easily fixed.

You're right, a person can't hold himself out to be something he is not.

I personally would only 'turn in' a practitioner to the state or IRS if I felt that harm was being done. Depending on the answer I got from my contact (above), I would determine the next step to take, if any.

We do have to hold each-other accountable. Kevinh5

How do you know that he is still issuing compilations and reviewed statements?

his post was about IRS representation. Kevinh5

Thank you.

In some states, compilations are allowed to be performed by anyone, in others, you must be a licensee (CPA, RPA, PA, etc.). Of course, reviewed and audited statements must be prepared by a licensee. Is Texas a strict 'license' state for compilations? Kevinh5

My last post

Hi Tex, thank you for your kind words! The thing that stimulates my writing on here is the nature of someone's post. A post will strike me as funny or interesting or despairing, and I just take off from there. I don't think I could do it without the original post. Oh, and I wanted to add that Flip Wilson was one of my favorites of all time! Take care.CrowJD 18:27, 16 September 2010 (CDT)

'cleared'

Yes, he indicated that it was an oversight that was corrected once we pointed it out to him. I wonder how many others let licenses lapse? Must be dozens a year per state. Kevinh5

I fixed it

I hope I fixed it now. CrowJD 16:43, 17 September 2010 (CDT)

Corrected my post

Tex, you are absolutely right, I was ignorant of this MERS system, and I've corrected my post in response to yours. CrowJD 05:45, 15 October 2010 (CDT)

Hi,

Thanks for the kind words! I love coming on this forum both to ask the occasional question myself, and just read all the topics - I find it so much more interesting to read these messy situations than the dry cut examples in newsletters about new developments. :) I know I may not always be interpreting people's typed words correctly, but sometimes it's hard to see how someone meant it otherwise but mean! I'm also getting used to this wiki format unlike other forums I'm on where there are mods who delete and police the code of conduct. My perception here is that it's the site veterans, who in another context would be the mods enforcing the conduct, are instead here the ones acting out. But, I know what you mean about letting oneself get upset - I'll try to keep that in mind more as I'm reading here. :)

Thanks!

Margaret

Pegatha 19:18, 27 October 2010 (CDT)

development costs.

Change of intent would not be enough for me. The commercial project would have to be irrevocably dead and all capitalized expense shown to have absolutely no value with respect to the residential project. Dennis 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For some time

Yes, this MS has been worrying Tom for some time, at least 3 years. I agree Tom is a great guy. Sometimes our body just won't cooperate and I hope Tom finds some use for his talents besides the stress of tax season.CrowJD 04:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Note on Commerce Clause

TexCPA, you quoted this from the opinion:

the “greatest threat to state autonomy is, and has long been, Congress’s spending power” and “the states will be at the mercy of Congress so long as there are no meaningful limits on its spending power

It's not just the US Congress that wants a Commerce Clause without restrictions. It's also big business. Big business is not a fan of states rights. Large businesses like to have laws apply nationwide without having to worry about 50 state legislatures. They prefer uniform laws. Large businesses like to concentrate their lobbying effort in Washingon. The reason that the conservative Supreme Court justices will probably vote to uphold Obamacare is if they don't, then big banks and big business may be boxed in as well. That's my reading of it anyway, for what it's worth.

Like it or not, when it comes to the Commerce Clause, the states are basically (though perhaps not completely) dead. Of course, it's always dangerous to predict what the Court will do. CrowJD 06:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The nature of insurance is just different

I always enjoy speaking with you as well.

Insurance is just a strange animal. The more healthy people who join the more efficient it is for all, and it is true that even young healthy people can get very sick. It's more of an actuarial thing than it is a "people control" thing in my opinion.

I think you put your finger on an aspect of this problem. Private insurance is really not all that great. The "choice" is many times just an illusion.

Usually more companies means more competition, lower prices and more choice. However, in the health field, private insurance usually offers meager choice and huge administrative costs for doctors and hospitals and patients to comply with all these different contracts.

There is a huge cost to "choice".

The insurance companies play "gotcha" if you don't dot every I and cross every T. Then you have the cost of refiling and appealing and we know it's a costly game and doctors and hospitals have to eat this cost.

My position is for single payor universal care as a way to make the best of an imperfect situation. It will not be perfect and I would LOVE to have my own private consierge doctor who made house calls! Who wouldn't? I think the best thing to USA could do is appoint something like the Base Closing Commission for closing defense bases and let them tackle this issue on a rational basis.

(If that is possible. lol). CrowJD 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you posting

I thought your account had been compromised! Someone using your ID replaced the entire Consumer Forum index page with spam links. If you haven't changed your password here recently, you should do so right away.

Trillium 03:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course!

Of course I knew it couldn't have been YOU - which is why I didn't block the ID immediately!!

I meant to mention in my first note - be sure to check any other accounts with similar passwords to the one you use on this site, as I am fairly certain that the password compromise didn't come from the TA-side (i.e., either someone was on your computer and you were already logged in and/or your password is saved in your browser, OR they've discovered your preferred sites and have determined your passwords in some other way, like if the password here is similar to one you use on whatever website they got access to first).

Thanks,

Trillium 04:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Tim to look into it

Tim Doyle is in a better position to determine what happened and from where, and I sent him an e-mail late last night asking for suggestions on anything else you, or we, should be doing (along with whatever Tim and his team might do to track down the issue). I haven't heard back from him yet. You've already changed your password to something stronger (or at least different!) which will resolve the issue if the problem was that someone guessed/cracked your password to log in as you - and it hasn't happened again, which could mean the password change and checking your computer for viruses/spyware was all that was needed. When I hear back from Tim, if he has any other input for you, I will pass it along.

Thanks,

Trillium 19:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No news (is that good news?)

Hi, Tex:

I was hoping to have some news or info for you one way or the other, but I don't really know anything new. Speaking in general terms, among the many ways that spam could have been posted under your ID, the two most likely are (1) your password was known or guessed by the spammers, or (2) the spammers simply made it look like it was your user ID posting the spam, and they could have chosen any other user ID but used yours for some reason known only to them. If it was the first thing, then you want to check for physical control of the computer/computers you log in with, make sure you're not logging in from public computers w/o logging out again, etc., make sure your computer is free of viruses and spyware, and change your password. And I believe you've done all of that. If it was the second thing, there's nothing you really could or should do. Sorry I don't have any info on which was more likely in this particular case (or even if what happened was one of those two things).

Trillium 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to see it

I'll try to get around to seeing that movie or video you mentioned. I'm beyond surprise on the whole issue. The middle class and the poor will end up paying for this for years to come. Thanks for the information! CrowJD 03:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note TexCPA.

Employers will always try and pay the least they can, but that's just business.

I see you are active on this forum so I imagine we will speak again.

Have a great day.

-UTDgrad

More spoofing

Hi, TexCPA - thanks for adding that note on the "Film at 11" discussion tonight - the one that showed up as if TaxWriter had posted it. That spoofing that has been happening on-and-off for a while, ever since that weird night that it looked like your user ID had wiped out the entire consumer forum, is back again with a vengeance. Tim Doyle's got his engineers looking at locking it down again. Apparently it's just a setting that they have to reset now and then.

When it's out of whack, posts show up as being by the wrong people, and apparently also spammers can take advantage of that to play their games.

As before - from what Tim told us, this is nothing that the individual users involved need to do anything about; it's an Intuit problem and they hope to have it fixed again.

Meanwhile, though, right after your YouTube post that went in as TaxWriter's post, there was a bunch of spam posted with that ID. So to be cautious, and since your post was for fun for all of us and not a tax response somebody needed right then, I have temporarily removed your YouTube link posts. Once tonight's spoofing is resolved, we can get them back in again.

Sorry for the continued inconvenience.

Trillium 04:43, 3 March 2012 (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)

Frankly 19:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools