Discussion:How to deal with Tax Protestors?

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

Discussion Forum Index --> General Chat --> How to deal with Tax Protestors?


Tax Writer (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
How to deal with Tax Protestors?

The client seemed completely normal at first. He works for city government and the wife was a schoolteacher. He made small-talk, then he told me that the IRS is threatening to garnish wages. He starts in on that old yarn,

“The US constitution doesn’t require us to pay taxes, blah blah blah…”

I admit that I lost my cool… the guy works for the government, for Pete’s sake!

I said, “Do you realize that all of your income-- including your wife’s salary-- come from taxes that other people have paid? You both have government jobs!”

He got upset and walked out. I have to learn how to deal with these people better and not take it so personally.

Tax Writer

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
Next time you get one in there, point to the winder, and tell them to go out to the street and protest, and leave you alone.

Honestly Tax Writer, things were bad already with the education level in the country. But then you have people like Glenn Beck come along and tell people to read their Constitution.

The problem is that the Constitution and the amendments were vague from day one. Sometimes they were intentionally left vague.

Courts were always meant to interpret our laws, including the Constitution, and that's why the Founders set up the courts in Article III. And when courts interpret law, they put their veneer on it, and they MAKE LAW. It's our system. Courts are in the system.

This flys right over the head of some of these idiots.

David1980 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
"He got upset and walked out"

No, I think you did it right. What, did you actually expect to talk a tax protester into filing a tax return? Just cut your losses and get rid of them.

Matrix8 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
Tell him that Tax Protestors tend to go to jail, and show him the relevant news articles. For example: http://www.garynorth.com/public/692.cfm and http://www.taxhelpattorney.com/videos/tax-protestor-sherry-jackson.html

The fact that the person came to your office shows that he does have some level of uncertainty in the back of his mind. Maybe you could turn him into a client if you convince him that his idea is a myth. Every government has taxes. Even the feudal system of ages past required indentured servants to pay a tax or pay the lord for use of land. But maybe it's a waste of time dealing with people like that, and David1980's suggestion of cutting your losses is better. It's like there's no point in arguing with a drunk man.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

This is the 2010 version. My comment to such people is 'then what are you doing here?' I never forget this one 40ish unmarried woman, who when I asked, burst into tears and blurted out, "I'm scared." She worked at a place where there were many followers of a then-prominent Bucks County PA tax protestor and all of them claimed 'exempt' on the W-4 form.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
I tell them that I am not a good fit for their needs and sometimes I give them the card of a competitor.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
That woman would call early every January and ask how much estimated tax to pay. Peer pressure was her problem.....everyone where she worked believed in this guy.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
This is what happens when you have the highschool baseball coach teaching civics.

Kids get out of highschool knowing next to nothing about our legal system. You don't know the law just by looking at a Code or a Constitution (and it's Amendments).

You consult the IRC, then the Regs.. Tax Court opinions, Circuit court opinions, Supreme Court opinions.

U.S. Constitution, you can't just look at the document as amended, you must read the court interpretations of it to know Constitutional law (Glenn Beck notwithstanding).

America's problem is ignorance, stupidity, and that's why idiots like Beck (and others of his ilk) get traction.

MWPXYZ (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
It is possible for the Supreme Court to mess up, although we do have to live with it's decisions. Although they got the last one right!! But, it may be a while before they fix McCulloch v Maryland.

I said, “Do you realize that all of your income-- including your wife’s salary-- come from taxes that other people have paid? You both have government jobs!”

I don't think you could have said it any better.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
The weird thing is, these people are often completely normal in many other respects. Years ago, I represented an outspoken tax protester on an unrelated commercial matter. He told me all about the income tax so I made it a point to warn him during EACH office visit of the consequences of wilful refusal to file or wilful filing of a false return. He would disagree forcefully than we'd go back to work on his case. I saw recently that a fellow of the same (rather unusual) name got out of the federal pokey after serving five years for filing false returns and assisting others as an unenrolled preparer to evade the income tax. Dunno if it's the same guy, but...

DvilleCPA (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution in part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The 16th amendment broadened already existing powers.

KatieJ (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
TaxWriter, I agree with MWPXYZ: you said exactly the right thing.

I used to hang out on the unmoderated USENET boards, misc.taxes and us.taxes, which are mostly inhabited by tax protesters. The tax board on the old Prodigy system also had a few protesters chiming in. I came to the conclusion that arguing with a tax protester is like teaching a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig <G>. No matter how thoroughly you counter their argument, they come up with another one.

Be glad he walked out. Arguing with him would have wasted your time. However, here's a link to a pretty good list of tax protester arguments and their refutation: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Dan Evans, a Philadelphia lawyer (really <G>) and the author of this list, used to hang out on misc.taxes and argue with the protesters. He seemed indefatigable but evidently he got tired after all, since he hasn't been on the board for about 5 years. But he still keeps this web site up. It's useful if you have the time and energy to get into the argument.

There are others who still fight the good fight on misc.taxes. Art Kamlet and Paul Thomas deserve honorable mention.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
There does appear to be one limit on the power of the federal government to tax: Congress apparently cannot impose a straight property tax. Income taxes, excise taxes, import tariffs, sure, but a straight tax on the value of property owned? No, apparently not. The gift tax, generation skipping tax, and late lamented (but soon to be reborn) estate tax are excise taxes levied on the privilege of transferring wealth (it says here).

Interesting, because, of course, most state and local governments impose exactly such ad valorum taxes.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
I never knew that. I wonder if the states have ever been challanged, or if this is somehow reserved to the states, and their constitutions? Duh, what am I saying, it's a federal constitution. I don't know how the commerce clause would come into play here, if at all.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
In my experience, government employees make poor clients in general.

I applaud your anger and share it with you.

I do not have any government clients any more. They are spoiled rotten cry babies.

Pensions galore, excessive time off, benefits that NO corporation could provide.

Oh... see you got me started! BTW Like your web site.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
I will agree that there is a big lie out there about government work.

I've heard it said many times "We've got to raise government salaries to keep up with the private sector".

Well, this is true at the top, federal judges are very underpaid, for instance.

However, for the typical middle class worker, government pay is darn good, and in many cases much better than the private sector when you consider the entire package.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
WOW!!!!! Crow and I agree.

I'm gonna go check the front door, I think the Massiah has come (lol).

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
lol. Well, I was going to say, I blame this on the private sector. We need to cut that CEO pay, and the pay of the top echelon, and distribute that money to people doing the work.

But, since we've decided to compete with Chinese labor now, I don't see that happening.

I do see a problem with this CEO pay though, it would be less of a problem if shareholders actually had rights.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
I audited state and local governments early in my career. I was appalled at the "packages" , rank and file public emoyees get.

Cops on LI are retiring at the age 45 with pensions of 85K annually for the rest of their life. Teachers making 80 K to 140K.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Yes, that is generous to put it mildly, and the same thing goes on with the local governments here.

To even get a real pension today is a treasure. Defined benefits (is that what they call them?, or something along that line).

But I think it's just a matter of time. Labor wage pressure is just down.

I don't know if that's good overall though. These defined contribution pensions are a disaster, and I forsee social instability. People are going to be close to broke at retirement because they have poor investment choices, and they don't know how to invest.

These workers now with a defined benefit pention are the last of a breed, even in government, I think.

TRcpa (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
I always bring up the example of a family member when I run across these folks. For years and years he never filed, said he didn't have to and they never did anthing to him........yada yada yada. Well that was all fine until he sold his house and the incoming funds went into escrow. Needless to say the 30-50K in post closing cash (he very much needed) never reached him and became the property of the federal government. Sooner or later it will always catchup to you.

WD Kebschull (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Pop Quiz

In the Instructions for Form 763 and on Form 763 the State of Virginia requires that both nonresident spouses have Virginia source income in order to file as Married, Filing Joint Return unless one spouse has no income from any source and then the filing status, Married, Spouse Has No Income from Any Source can be used.

1. Compare the above filing status requirements for nonresidents with the filing statuses allowed for residents.

2. Determine if the special filing status requirements for nonresidents can result in nonresidents paying higher taxes than residents on the same Virginia income.

3. If the special filing status requirements for nonresidents cause the nonresidents to pay more tax because of the special requirements, how much higher can the tax be?

4. Does the United States Constitution bar a state from imposing higher taxes on nonresidents than those imposed on residents. If so, identify the Article, Section, and Clause.

5. Does the Virginia Code provide special filing status requirements for a husband and wife who are both nonresidents. If so, identify the section of the Virginia Code.

6. Name all other states that require both nonresident spouses have income from their state in order to file married filing joint return.

7. Name all other states that have a Married, Spouse Has No Income from Any Source filing status.

8. Who was Bushrod Washington?

Smokeytax (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Wow, WD, that makes my head hurt (a frequent condition lately).

To the tax protesters, if they don't like taxes & government (however flawed), they should move to Somalia - but probably not so attractive if they have daughters and sons.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Virginia is taking the 'tax the man behind the tree' to its logical, if perhaps unconstitutional' conclusion.

Does anyone else here remember when non-resident taxes in states like NY, Delaware and I believe California [three states with very graduated rates] were based on first computing income in that state and then taking a percentage of deductions against that income to figure tax? Then some brain figured out the way to do it. Tax the entire pot and then figure out the percentage earned in that state. With graduated rates, the number has to be higher.

And what happens when this occurs is that other states jump on the bandwagon, so that New Jersey, whose tax is not based on Federal income, stated doing so.

Oddly one of the few states that does play fair with non-residents is 'Taxachusetts' where deductions are limited to the percent based on MASS income. Who would have ever thunk it?

Taocpa (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
WD,

Bushrod Washington was the nephew of George Washington.

What do I win? Please don't tell me a lifetime supply of Rice-A-Roni(that San Francisco Treat) or Turtle Wax (for that hard shell finish!).

Tom

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Oh!

I thought it was Rice-a-Roni that has the hard shell finish.

Funny thing, that. In all the many years I've visited San Franscisco, from my extreme youth in the early '60s through the end of my Navy Reserve service in the mid-2000s, I have never, ever seen Rice-a-Roni on a menu in any restaurant nor have I ever been offered the dish in a private home. It might be a San Francisco treat somewhere but not in San Francisco, California.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Be careful out there. I asked one of the waiters for the San Francisco treat, and got something I wasn't expecting. I think that jingo came off the desk of some Madison Avenue copywriter.

WD Kebschull (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Taocpa,

Now that you know who Bushrod Washington was, you should have no problem with Question 4. Isn't Wikipedia great!

For you I was thinking in terms of a can of Haggis. I seem to remember that it can now be bought in the US, but maybe not.

I was think in terms of possum stew for Smokeytax until I discovered that he is from Maryland, not East Tennessee, but I could make an exception just this one time.

Taocpa (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
WD,

My dad is a George Washington buff and I have been to Mount Vernon a bunch of times. If I recall correctly, Bushrod took over Mt. Vernon after GW's death in 1799. After that, I don't know anything about him.

I am Irish, not Scottish. Haggis is a horrid sounding dish one I would never eat.

Smokeytax is female, if I am not mistaken. I doubt opossum is on her diet.

NMexEA, all of those were the runner-up prizes on the game shows back in the day. You would also get Samsonite luggage as well, or maybe a goat if you were on "Let's Make A Deal" and you unfortunately picked the wrong door because Monty Hall goaded you into it.

Another way to deal with tax protesters is to ask them, "Do you use the roads, the public parks and other public facilities? If you are, stop using them because you are not paying for them." I used that at another job with these clowns. They would hang up because they had no counter argument.

Tom

Mscash (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
If he was such a fruitcake what was he doing in your office in the first place?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
he wanted a 'free second look'

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
that won't be an issue once we all work for the government

Davidcpa (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Crow - I've heard it said many times "We've got to raise government salaries to keep up with the private sector".

I know I am late to this party, but this hit a hot button for me. My mother, father & mother-in-law were all gov't employees. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard from them how little they money they made. They all retired shortly after 55 with full pension (about 65-70% of their last year's income) & health benefits. Plus, in NC, their pensions are exempt from state tax.

This summer after hearing..."If I worked for a private company I could have made $$$$!!!!" I lost it.

Yeah, you are right. Your gross could have been higher. You could have also worried about losing your jobs every time your share price needed a boost vs having it NEVER cross your mind in 30+ years. You could have worried about losing/gaining clients/customers & meeting payroll. You could have worked 12-13 hour days with the stress of pleasing your bosses/customers, meeting filing deadlines, staying up to date on latest rules/regs/technology and fear of malpractice claims vs 7.5 hour days & ahhh...it will be here tomorrow. You could have worried about how much your health insurance premiums were going eat out of your check vs 100% coverage fully paid for. You could have worried about saving for retirement vs knowing you have a guaranteed pension regardless of how much you saved, how your investments performed or how the gov't will decide to tax them.

So, after doing some quick math at the picnic table and figuring that to have the same after tax retirement they have I would need to have a few boatloads of cash in my IRA's/401(k)'s they promised not to b*tch anymore about their low pay.

Sorry for the rant.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Everybody always thinks they have it worse than the next guy. I have to bite my tongue when I talk to certain people - particularly postal employees. Please explain how a clerk can make 55-60 & pay no FICA???? Can't wait until 2010 & mandated e-file. They are the only ones who insist on paper filing.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
First off, we don't refer to them as government workers, we call them employees. Big difference.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Fsteincpa - huh? employee or government worker, what's the difference? Are you saying that Postal workers aren't government employees? I'm confused why they are exempt from FICA then....

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

9 February 2010
Fsteincpa - huh? employee or government worker, what's the difference? Are you saying that Postal workers aren't government employees? I'm confused why they are exempt from FICA then....

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Sz - Because labeling them as workers would insinuate that they actually WORK for their paycheck.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
It's a crime what's happening.

You would need to save upwards of 2 million to retire at 55 to 60 and receive a pension similar to a postal employee/cop/administrator to pay for their lifetime benefits.

Government employees are the hidden NUMBER ONE cost in all government expense.

Davidcpa (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Yeah - to match what my parents are receiving my wife & I would need a tick over $3.75. They worked 36 years. Hmmmm...5% rate of return, that is about $39k/year that went to their lifetime benefits.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Fsteincpa- got it!

Kyea (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Ok. I'm a retired government employee with a good pension. I've heard all of the arguments. I had cousins who went to work for GE, Ford, International Harvester, etc., right out of high school. They had apartments and drove new cars at the age of nineteen or twenty. Had a pension of some sort that didn't require a penny contribution on their part. 401K offerings came along. Most didn't take advantage of the opportunity.

I went to college took my first job at less than what the factory working cousins made. Took advantage of every educational improvement offered. Put up with the change of administration every four years. Made a contribution toward my retirement that was matched by my employer.

A few years back when the economy was going strong, I had to nearly beg to get someone to work at an entry level auditor. We scavenged other agencies. We could finally cobble together a pretty good staff of people who were willing to work for that wage. Everyone else was flying high. A had friends in the private sector who were boasting of 401k values of over one-million dollars. They would be derisive when they told me that I could never retain the corpus of my retirement, it would be all lost when I stopped drawing.

Then came the dot-com bust. Then the 2008 crash.

Now the government employee is the greedy, selfish cry baby?

When the economy starts to grow again, those who have flocked to public service in the tougher times will head out to greener pastures. I saw it happen in the seventies, eighties, nineties, the early 00's in '08-'10.

Kyea (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Furthermore, Who really believes that postal workers don't work? Does the man or woman on your route not work? I saw one slip and bust his $#@ on a slick steet this morning. He made his deliveries. The UPS guy spends more time in his truck. Does he work? He is paid better and most likely has better benefits than the letter carrier.

Matrix8 (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
I somewhat disagree with Kyea above. Those high-paying doc-com jobs represented a tiny portion of the of the overall job market. The average government worker fairs much better than the average worker in private industry in general. There are so many private jobs that do not increase pay at all for years and years, and offer ZERO benefits. If you work a government job you are automatically guaranteed annual increases, and Full Benefits. Those great paying jobs in private industry are only in the top Fortune 500 or Fortune 1,000 companies, and they are not representative of jobs overall in private industry. Small businesses under 100 employees represent 99% of the jobs in the private sector.

Matrix8 (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
"We need to cut that CEO pay, and the pay of the top echelon, and distribute that money to people doing the work. But, since we've decided to compete with Chinese labor now, I don't see that happening. I do see a problem with this CEO pay though, it would be less of a problem if shareholders actually had rights." -

The day when shareholders vote to outsource the $50 million US CEO position to a new CEO in India willing to work for $1 million will be the day things come full circle, and US CEOs will say "OMG, what have I done"?

David1980 (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
You also are more likely to work longer hours in the private sector than in a government job. 40 hour weeks? Yup, if you're a government worker.

Kyea (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
I tend to disagree with Matrix's thoughtful comments in regard to public sector pay and benefits. When we start comparing public sector pay and benefits to those of the private sector

What are we comparing? For one thing the public sector does not hire across as broad a spectrum as the private sector.

The public sector hires few if any barbers, shoe repairmen, tool and dye workers, short order cooks,etc. I'm not belittling any of those occupaions. If you want to make a accurate comparison do it by job classification. Compare government employed lawyers to those of the private sector. Likewise, accountants and engineers. In my state government hires a significant number of higher-skilled better educated employees than many of the private sector industries.

Davidcpa (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
KYEA - I think there are pros & cons to pretty much everything in life. Certainly as you look at private vs public sector there are pros/cons on both sides. What gets me going are the gov't workers that do not see and/or appreciate the pros that they do have.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Maybe it's different in NY, but I am near albany the heart of NY government and you can say what you want, but most government employees actually do maybe 4 hours of work during the day as opposed to 8+ that private sector does. Don't get me wrong. there are some who do actual work, but the vast majority are there enjoying a paycheck and the benefits that come later.

Kyea (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Fsteincpa-I think that is often true in many other states and city governments. But, I have also seen the nature of the work dictate the work flow. Some jobs don't provide the steady flow year round. That can be addressed through seasonal hires but doesn't always work out. I also know from experience that work flow differences also exist in the private sector.

However, I do agree with Davidcpa that there are many folks in the public sector who don't appreciate what they had when they were working and what they have now as retirees. It is very possible that the nature of the beast attracts more whiners. I had some pretty productive people on my staff who whined a lot and I often wondered if that was the reason they had not been happy and/or successful in their private sector jobs.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Fred: what you have discovered is how so many government offices are dysfunctional in terms of employees working together....with civil service and with public employee unions, it becomes difficult for government supervisors or higher to make changes(personnel) that anyone in private industry could do. I've been in the Philadelphia Revenue Department and witnessed how two people sitting one in front of the other do not talk to each other so that the one, to get a file on the other's desk, goes to her supervisor who comes back to him and asks if he has the file.

I have a client who started as a Social Worker with the City and worked himself up to becoming Deputy Commissioner of Welfare....as someone else told me, he would have been commissioner but for gender, race and sexual persuasion. This man would buy his staff Daytimers and insist they keep them up to date.....he is now with a non-profit but even in his last years his salary just about reached 120K.....he made life and death decisions for his 'clients.'

Government work = security; even twenty years ago you knew you would not be transferred across the country. I made a living doing returns of people who worked for IBM, the old AT&T etc who were always being relocated.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
In any job or profession there are those that go above & beyond the call of duty and those those that do the bare minimum. Those that don't perform in the public sector quickly find themselves unemployed. There are government layoffs & furloughs but eventually these people find their way back to a job. You can't tell me that the postal clerk is any more deserved of their 55-60K than the grocery clerk making 7.50-10 an hour... and unless they are full time, no benefits.

For the record - I do like the people at my post office, and one even made their way to my house for a snow storm delivery (way beyond the call of duty - I was on her way home)... yet I didn't get mail Sat or Monday as a result of the last weekend snowstorm. I probably wont get any today or tomorrow either....I wonder if the grocery store is open.....

Kyea (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Is that were we are setting the bar 7.50-10.00 an hour? How much are we charging per hour for tax returns? If we can make an argument that our skill level is vastly supererior to that of a grocery clerk then we deserve more. Can we make a better argument than the postal clerk?

I have a hunch that the postal clerk is more reliable on the average than the grocery clerk. He actually has more responsibility. If he loses his job there aren't any more post offices to work for. A grocery clerk can go across town and ply his trade.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
I don't know how you leam from the postal clerk/grocery clerk comparison to comparing what CPAs & EAs charge for returns. From my perspective any clerk working a register is comparable to another. They each must receive training & have a skill set appropriate to their position. There are probably more grocery items than Zip codes....

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Please.... I worked for a government agency my first 3 years out of school.

The most uninspiring environment. As a CPA I audited local villages, counties etc...

Give every government employee an 8 percent 401K match and NO guranteed pension and they would quit. The LARGE majority of these people are just like Fred describes. In their mind they work very hard, they have nothing to compare it to. Go to DMV, post office, schools, county clerks office and decide for yourself.

To compare UPS to post office is absurd. Talk to a UPS driver. They have commitment times, heavy loads, are monitored under GPS etc.. . UPS is also profitable.


Post office???? Don't make me laugh.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
But I do wonder how profitable UPS would be, and how gung ho their drivers would be, if they had to deliver the crap that American business, using subsidized rates, fills our mail with? And I am not just talking catalogues.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
Can we move this to Chat?

Trillium (talk|edits) said:

10 February 2010
D&T - good idea. I'll move it in a few minutes (so those who are watching for new posts will know where it's going and can catch up to it).

Matrix8 (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2010
It did start as a tax question, but then morphed into a discussion about government vs. private jobs. Many years ago I did have a discussion with an accounting student and we discussed what if he did not get into a Big 4 or at least mid tier CPA firm. We both agreed the next best alternative would be to work for the government because the typical mom and pop small business or small office CPA firm cannot afford to pay you a great full-time salary with healthcare and solid pension. Most people on this board who operate their own tax/acct practice and hire some workers would probably agree with me.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools