Discussion:The End of the Forum :(

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 --> Basic Tax Questions --> The End of the Forum :(


Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> The End of the Forum :(

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 23, 2011
Apparently every conceivable question, and even those inconceivable, has been asked. And answered. So from this day forward there will be merely a BIG YELLOW BOX with Kevin's face and finger pointing to it.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 23, 2011
:)

Not even April 1st.

PHIL MOODY (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
Which finger?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
Trigger finger, or better, the great Neil Young

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMvjfBdeiKw

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
here here! A much better solution than roping a fast elephant! Discussion:When is a question Stupid??

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
It'll never happen JR. Everyone knows about the yellow box, but everyone's question is always just a little more unique or has just a little different twist to it or the client in question has done something that doesn't quite fit, so the OP needs to ask the question themselves.  :)

I don't mean that to be sarcastic, but basically those are the reasons we continue to ask our own question. I applaud the diversity, because often those new issues enhance the discussions and things change so fast sometimes we really do need a new spin on an old discussion. Now, can I file for a late S election? And BTW, what happens to earnest money lost, can I write it off?

Ernest Money (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
i am trying to find out the same question except the deposit was paid by an s corp that didnt pay any salary to owner instead do i put it on a 1099 or what?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
I'm pretty sure you have to put the lost earnest money on a 1099-C to deduct it, but maybe DaveFogel can tell us.

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
Yeah, finally, "more unique" has been used correctly.

If I knew I could rely on what I find in The Box I would go there more often.

And anyway the house is *white* this time, not yellow like it was last time.

Tax Writer (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
Can I deduct a bad debt if I'm on the cash basis?

Also, I have a client who is going through a divorce-- he's not the custodial parent, so what form does he have to sign in order to take the dependency exemption?

Also, can my client claim his mother if she recieves SSI?

Can you tell me a little bit about mortgage debt forgiveness, too?

Also, my new client hasn't filed in 15 years, and he's smells like liquor and weed. Is it a good idea to get a retainer? I don't want to offend him.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
"My situation is that I want to do a buyout with my two older brothers so that I can become the sole owner of the house that my parents bought in 1970 (for $25K). I have always lived in the house. My brothers moved out a long time ago. After my mother passed away two years ago, my father, now age 87, moved back to his native country in Europe, but he has a life estate to the house here in Queens, New York.

Due to skyrocketing increases in home prices in the past several years, I am not able to afford a buyout at the house's current value (approximately $510K). My brothers have agreed to accept a buyout at $240K, which means each brother would get $120 ea from me after I obtain a mortgage loan. In the event I ever sell the house in the future, it would be put in legal writing that I would pay them back (2007 appraised value/3)- $120K.

My question simply is: if I do the buyout and pay each brother $120, do they have to pay Taxes on it? The oldest brother lives in Florida if that means anything.

Typo: should be a K after 120, or: $120,000. (not a mere $120)."

And I don't need your stinkin yellow box either!

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
yellow box search would be

BeatleFred

or

House Buyout


LOL

LJK CPA (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
It will be a big yellow box with a "click to pay" Kevin for search terms right next to it.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
You searched for kevin all pages starting with "kevin" all pages that link to "kevin"

Jump to: navigation, search No article titles include your search terms. There is no page titled "kevin". You can create this page.

The results of searching for kevin.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
You have to use the right search term, Roy. Try it with

Kevinh5


then you have to click on

10 Million views

otherwise you only get part of the answers

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
Reminds me of that Kevin Bacon commercial.....everything turns into Kevin Bacon.

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
yo ho yo ho - I can hear the tune now........

CrowCPA (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
I'm with JR. Every time I use the yellow box, half the hits I get advise me to use the yellow box.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
As I've said before, sometimes repeating a question answered previously and generating new discussion, well, it's not a bad idea. Newbies asking questions again, allows those who used to be newbies and are now veterans, to answer these questions, or to get further clarification.

It's about the banter and the furthering of the tax profession. If it was entirely about learning how to research, well, guess what, we don't really need this forum to do our own research. There would be no need for this forum other than to just chat. Because if it's about complaining about clients, well, we can use the yellow box to find those same exact complaints from the prior years.

I believe that it is healthy to kill the kittens. There is an overabundance of the furry little critters running around.

I like when people ask questions, even if they've been asked before.

Doug M (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
BeatleFred?

Wow Kevin, I know certain people who have this fantastic memory, have the ability to recall anything but that was unbelievable.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

23 March 2011
Every T/Aer should be taught The Legend of Beatle Fred in their cradle. More amazing was that the discussion came in tax season. Pray for Beatle Fred.

Doug M (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Now you got me wishing I had found the T/A site in early 2007.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Everyone has a mind and a memory, Doug. Some use their mind to remember when to go to the fridge for another beer. I saw a movie last night held by our local Cinema Society about the Guiness Book of World Records ( Breaking and Entering was the name of the movie) where a guy had memorized Pi to 67,980 places. Afterwards, we met the film director and asked questions (like "why do those people do stuff like that? Don't they have lives?")

Now, what value is that? At least with my memory, I can use it to direct people to the yellow box.

Taocpa (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
I don't know why he called himself "Beatle Fred". I always thought Clarence was the "Other Beatle".

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?xl=xl_blazer&v=ZcrRZCZcyX4

Tom

MilTaxEA (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
I wasn't around for Beatle Fred. Took me a second to look it up.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
And THAT was why we started requiring users to have Profiles showing they were tax professionals and why we started making it harder for consumers to post here.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Yellow box? What yellow box? ;-]

Snowbird (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
"Yellow box? What yellow box? ;-] "

I agree ! First, can't remember there is a search box due to short term memory loss and then, can't find the box, the blue starts to washout the whole page looks yellow! Goes with age and cataracts! But, I can sell see to try a fish hook!

Ddoshan (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Ditto to what Fsteincpa stated.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
why ditto it if you can look it up in the yellow box?


MY POINT EXACTLY

There is too much redundant repitition over and over, again and again then repeatedly once more. Rinse and repeat. Pete and repeat.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-t7uVdID3s

Ddoshan (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Would it be possible for members of this forum to vote. Not necessarily to get rid of the yellow box altogether, but keep it there only for those that want to take the time and effort to search or research a topic without taking up space and bothering others with the same old questions.

But for those that want to keep asking the same old questions over and over it would be off limits to direct them to the Yellow Box.

I know there are often questions asked in which I would be interested in repsonses to, but am much too lazy to waste my valuable time doing yellow box searches just to see if I can by chance find an answer.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
I'd rather we vote to get rid of the lazy participants, sorry. One person's valuable time spent searching does not outweigh 200 people's valuable time reading and answering these things.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Because repetitive reading assists in learning. Kevin, I understand your position, but you know all the answers ;-)

Would you prefer it to be just idle chatter amongst people of your level or do you wish to use this forum to expand and help people within the industry provide better service to the huddled masses.

You know I am completely anti-Kevin in this regards. When it comes to the consumers and to the yellow box. Yes, the yellow box should be used. But the extremely vocal chastising of people without profiles and the yellow box search turns people away.

Again, I think it is a good thing when a new topic is presented on old items. Because maybe, just maybe a new thought or idea comes forth on this new discussion.

For the veterans of the board, if there is a new topic that could have been answered thru yellow box, let the newbies and the not quite vets have a shot at discussing, then use your worldly knowledge to gently guide people.

Hell, you might be surprised at some brand new fresh idea or take on something.

some of this worlds greatest inventions were borne of mistakes made.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Dan, I am with you. You can be my voice against Kevin in this regard. And Kevin, I am quite certain that you do know I jest with you on this when I pick you out. I do disagree with you, but I think you also know I respect you and your work here, and that you don't get offended by disagreements.

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
You could create a profile designation.

"Y" - This user is a Yellow Box User.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
And a scarlet A for those who don't.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 24, 2011
Well, this reminds me of much older chats...if you don't want to answer, THEN FREAKIN' DON'T ANSWER!! How difficult is that? It was the same problem with the consumer questions, which many of us rather enjoyed! But some seem unable to resist temptation and cannot leave well enough alone with things they'd prefer to ignore, but seemingly can't.

It does lead to a rather tense and often negative atmosphere, unnecessarily. If people don't answer a post, the poster will get the message! I have done research for someone here only a couple times, by that I mean something more than looking in The Tax Book or some other quick reference. So, don't. If you don't know the answer, or where to find it, just be quiet.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Thank you JR, my view exactly. But this is when the will of the few is imposed on the many.  ;-)

It's the same type of deal with the well doers who believe that they should impose their will on the rest of us, for our benefit. Oh yes NY, let's remove salt from restaurants.

I also enjoyed the consumer questions, if only for the fact that I could actually answer their questions.  ;-)

So, obviously, the will of the group is not a unanimous one on this point.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 24, 2011
Ghaddafi. Tho' more beloved! :)

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Action: Everyone knows about the yellow box, but everyone's question is always just a little more unique or has just a little different twist to it

AMEN!! ..twists and turns and nuances...nothing is ever exactly the same. And, you don't have to answer if you don't want to.


Kinda like showing up fashionably late for a party, and asking another party goer the old standard, "What do you do you do for a living?" and having him reply, "Go ask Kevin, I just told him." ; )


I'm years later than the rest of you and would love to catch up !!  : ) It's only simple if you already know it...

Ddoshan (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Kinda like showing up fashionably late for a party, and asking another party goer the old standard, "What do you do you do for a living?" and having him reply, "Go ask Kevin, I just told him." ; )

That was funny!

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
What's even more funny, Ddoshan, is that I search Google and find Tax Alamanac, and then I have to search Tax Alamanac for my question. Then when I find plenty useful, read for hours, but don't find exactly what I need, I have to SEARCH MY SOUL for the courage to pose my question!! ;)

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 24, 2011
Just buck up, put up your dukes, ignore yellow box Kevin replies, and wait for the rest of the cavalry...LOL.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
OC, that is the problem. Whether you search or not, a professional should NEVER EVER feel like they cannot post a question.

And we pick on Kevin, but it's not really him, or just him. He's the one who stands out. He's also one of the one's who answers a lot as well.

But that has always been my beef. I want newbie tax professionals coming here early in their career and asking questions. What better way to guide and put forth ethical preparers than by having them learn here.

Problem is, we scare them away and make them afraid to ask for fear of getting blasted. Some of these kids are trying to make their way through firms and they feel foolish asking questions of the partners in their firm. This is where they should ask and not feel foolish.

Let them ask the most basic of questions, if I know, I will answer and not make you search. Sometimes life is very hectic and you just want a gimme.

I consistently speak out about this. I feel this forum belongs to ALL the users. The more that speak up and mention it, the more other people may take notice. I know Kevin will and probably already has. Despite his save the kitty foundation, Rumor has it that he and Harry might have drank some PBR and gone on a kitty kickin binge.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
"The Yellow Box with a Twist".....or isn't that how many term a question that has been asked umpteen times, like the one Dave Fogel answered today on conversion of passive to personal.

So the thought strikes me that perhaps when we answer something and KNOW it won't be the only time we do so, we cross post the reponse to the Answer Pot, where it will be assigned a number. Then the next time the question is asked, we might type "81" or "53" and such would be linked to the Answer Pot.

I thought this up because I remembered the old joke about the prison lunch room, where the inmates would shout out numbers and all would laugh. The newbie prisoner asked his seatmate, "What is going on?" and the reply was "Oh, Herbie's telling a joke. We know them by number. Why don't you try it?" So the new man shouted "23" and there was dead silence. "Try again," said his mentor. "14" Nothing. "What happened, no one laughed." "Ah, I guess you don't know how to tell a joke."

LJK CPA (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
TA could create a new category for yellow box disestablishmentarianism where people can post without fear of recrimination.

I see both sides of the issue. If someone is sharing their time and knowledge then they have the right to set the rules. However, not answering could also be an option.

TaxDude (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Many times I have not posted a question here from fear of being chastised by the elite for asking a "stupid" question. I'll spend hours using the yellow box with many different search terms just so I am not reduced to asking the question, that by the way could probably be answered quickly by those better schooled than I. I agree with Fsteincpa - I wish there were more people on this board with his attitude on this subject. Thank you Fsteincpa for sticking up for the little guy!!

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion:Fred_for_President%3F

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
I am not above self promotion

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

24 March 2011
Dude: Discussion: When is a question Stupid??

46

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
Fsteincpa: OC, that is the problem. Whether you search or not, a professional should NEVER EVER feel like they cannot post a question.

You must be part of the cavalry JR1 promised!  ; ) I appreciate your opinion and consideration.

I have to confess, that I have found some great info by using the Yellow Search Box. But, if in a hurry, a much appreciated gimme is really nice. Kevin's wise cracking humor attracted me here, but the level of tax knowledge shared is unsurpassed. There aren't many books or articles this useful or even at the level I can fully comprehend!  : )

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 25, 2011
And you'll be blown away by his when he actually answers a question. He's a teacher and a good one...his yellow box fetishes aside.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
JR1, I first noticed this Tax Almanac forum when I'd search items of interest on Google. This site came up so many times with GREAT answers! Kevin's extensive knowledge was apparent, and I had to crack up at his hilarious remarks. I remember you had a lot of informative answers, and then there's Riley, who probably can cite every tax law ever passed! Now that I peek in here whenever I have time, I find that there are too many helpful SMARTYS to mention! And, boy, am I thankful for that!!!  : )

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
I am looking right now (rather two minutes ago) at two questions near the top of the roll that I have given answers several times. Do I or don't I? OOOOOPs, phone is ringing, guess I don't.

Flybynight (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
I'm with Kevin on using the yellow box and requiring profiles. The forum can only show so many questions at a time and repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered obscures questions that may need the collective wisdom of the group. Imagine if 90% of the questions were consumers asking basic questions like "what's basis?" or "Is a K-1 a small breed of dog?", it would destroy the forum for professionals because we'd have to wade through a bunch of questions and be unable to help each other. I feel the same way about questions that have been asked over and over (e.g. S-Corp vs LLC threads), they just get in the way of the cavalry coming to help when they're actually needed.

Profiles are important because they provide context regarding how technical our responses can be and how much weight people should give to someones response. If I have 3 replies to my question and no one has filled out a profile, then I don't know whose argument is likely to be correct and therefore should be followed up on first. If it's KatieJ responding about a state tax issue vs. 2 no profilers, then I know that I can reasonably rely on Katie's response and I should just try to confirm her response before going down the rabbit hole with the other two.

I really don't think running a quick 5-10 minute search and filling out a profile in about 2 minutes is that much to ask.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
I agree profiles are helpful, but required? I've looked at people's profiles eventually, or if I have an inkling. I don't judge the credibility of an answer based on a persons profile. I judge it based on the answers they have given in the past.

I also double check the answers if there is any trickiness to the situation. As for KatieJ, what's to say, she's a blessing. But, I didn't give her any credence based on her profile. I give her credence because her answers have been correct in the past. Profiles mean nothing, past history tells me something.

AS for scrolling through questions, does it really take all that time? Consumers have been pretty weeded out. As for S vs LLC, yeah it's been done to death, so ignore it, or give a helpful yellow box search term vs a vicious attack of USE THE YELLOW BOX.

Friendly is always better. Consumers are no longer the issue, what's more of an issue are that professionals are afraid to ask simple questions of the group.

How about instead of attacking and shouting use the yellow box, we instead create another category labeled 'postings for those that always search first and do not wish to be bothered by the masses' This way you won't have to wade through the stupid questions and then the rest of us who don't mind will happily venture there and then come visit you guys in the elite group.

The request for profiles and the attacks on people who don't put them there is actually worse than the attacks about the yellow box.

Flybynight (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
I agree that you develop a feel about who's good, who's not, and who's unfortunate enough to be a Jets fan after being on the board for a while :). (Full disclosure: I have a Dan Marino jersey in my office at home). For those people, I also rely on past reputation instead of their profile.

I know we all double check the answers, but I find that profiles are helpful in allowing me to provide helpful responses as well as when I need answers to questions, at least when it involves non-frequent posters. My own profile is hardly illuminating, but I don't think we're requesting a match.com level profile, just a couple sentences about your background is pretty easy to do and shows that you heed the initial warnings. If someone posts a question that has been answered hundreds of times, but at least has filled out a profile, I think "well, he filled out a profile so he likely just can't use the yellow box well, I'll help him out the best I can".

I agree that we should provide friendlier reminders to use the yellow box and I do so, I think that's better than ignoring it since they'll at least get a quality answer by using the yellow box. The hostility isn't necessary and I rarely see it, unless someone is trying to market a "certified tax professional designation" anyway. I share your goal of not having professionals be afraid to ask simple questions of the group. I'm sure some post here because they don't want to ask what they think is a "dumb question" of their partner-in-charge and the forum should be an amicable atmosphere for that. I think we can agree that we should (gently and consistently) point people towards the yellow box and let them know that this has been discussed previously and that comprehensive responses have been given in the past, but then answer the question if we feel qualified to do so. I do this, but sometimes people clearly ignore your polite suggestions (over and over) to use the yellow box and at some point, enough is enough. Expecting help and getting it, but repeatedly ignoring the concommitant advice to use the yellow box is what annoys me.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
As nice as I want to be, I can think of three people whose questions I will not answer. Two turn dialogue into a tennis match; returning serve seems to be their goal in life. With people like this, you get to the point where you say, 'why did I bother?' About two years ago I produced this article, http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Metropolitan_Area_and_Commuting, and yet the same offenders kept asking the same questions.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
I can't disagree with what Fly or David says, other than to do what David does and just not answer.

And I feel happy now because David does answer my questions even when I private ask them.

And Flyby, you did get me to check your profile and boy do I have a doozy of an audit rep coming up. I posted questions on this person a few years ago and it was one of those 50-50 deals and wa-boom. She might be paying back 12 to 15K in taxes.

I'm just backing up others in the request for a kinder gentler community for the most part. And oh yeah, there are definitely times when the proper thing to do is to slam somebody. Geez, I've done it before. You pick on one of my Hawaiian flowers and it's on. Also my Midwestern lovely, I would never leave her out.

Rudeness should beget rudeness. But, I always like to start out nice.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
I, for one, very much enjoy Kevin's snarkiness and extremely strong analyses. Someone has to be the "heavy" in any environment and Kevin happens to take on that role here most of the time. I am quite glad the forum is limited to tax professionals and would not support a change from that.

It's late March. I think anyone can be given a pass or two (or three) after multiple 70-80hr weeks. The faint of heart can wait until late April for handholding.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
By the way, I answered one of the two questions I saw earlier....mainly to keep someone from wasting his time.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
I'm agaist the search box on philosophical grounds.

I found out the last time I went for my ECT treatment (I'm up to 10,000 volts now) that my psychiatrist had been on here reading my old posts. He had two men in his office waiting to put a straightjacket on me when I walked in for my treatment. He said I was completely nuts. I felt like a character in a play by Tennessee Williams.

I had been tried and convicted and judged insane because of the search box.

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2011
I like Fred's suggestion about providing better search terms to use in the Yellow Box. It can be frustrating sometimes, and if you are tired it's hard to be creative and think up a different phrase to use that might work better.

Fly - I didn't know a K-1 was a type of dog. What a surprise, the things you learn here are amazing. Must be a puppy, maybe in it's first stage of life, the K-1 stage. How long will it take to get to the K-9 stage? Oh wait, maybe the yellow box will tell me.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2011
Oh wait, maybe the yellow box will tell me.

Action, the YELLOW BOX won't tell you anything unless you know how to ask. ; )

Reminds me of that Kevin Bacon commercial.....everything turns into Kevin Bacon

D&T, He looked so weird in that commercial that I thought it was someone trying to imitate him!

my psychiatrist had been on here reading my old posts

Crow, I wished I'd picked a different name, too. I searched Google yesterday and found myself on here. Now, I'll have to watch what I say! ; ) I like the fact profiles exist, but I usually form an opinion from the answers I see and don't usually look at them right away. I like the Yellow Search box and now like it even better imagining Kevin's smiling face and finger pointing to it. But, I like it as an OPTION, not as MANDATORY.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2011
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Yellow+Box+%22+site%3Ataxalmanac.org&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#sclient=psy&hl=en&lr=&source=hp&q=%22Yellow+Box+%22++Kevin+site:taxalmanac.org&aq=&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=158f5021afbf0802

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2011
Uh oh, Dennis, no privacy here! ; )

TDono2 (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2011
Ah, but take out the site reference and poor Joyce Shelton gets the blame for our Kevin! I thought for sure Kevin would still be the top ten hits. LOL

Even though dread of "Yellow Box Kevin" does make me rethink asking questions, it's not always a bad thing. It has kept me from posting questions that would end up in a real "DUH!" moment. So in a way, it is not all bad. BUT I will, in the future, remember to put in the beginning of the text when I am looking for a quick "gimme". Even if the "gimme" is a good search term, it is still helpful!

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 26, 2011
Joyce is who Kev is on Sat. nights.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2011
Good one, JR1!  ; )

TD, glad you braved it and decided to join in on the fun. The Yellow Box and Google have saved me many a time from asking a seemingly stupid question. My worst “DUH” moment, and my brothers still tease me about this, is worth sharing as I hope I never say anything this ditzy before this intelligent group.

It was probably 25 years ago at a family function, while we were all being subjected to yet another Angel’s baseball game on TV. I used to play on a softball team, and loved the Dodgers as a kid, and was well aware that there was the American League (Angels) and the National League (Dodgers.) I knew the names on the backs of the shirts were each player’s last name, but topped myself with this stupid question (after noticing the letters on the front of the caps) when I blurted out, “How come everybody is named Al?”

Be forewarned…you may see the tax equivalent of this.  ; )

KeithR (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2011
I did taxes in the UK for about fifteen years before I came here. To begin with, research was a pain. I could never find what I was looking for. Then, as I got more experienced and gained broader knowledge, I got better at knowing which keywords to look for. Consequently I got better and more efficient at doing taxes over time. I'll repeat that for the hard of reading. I got better over time. Once more. O V E R T I M E. It did not happen overnight.

Now all this begs the question: what is this site here for? Is it solely for experienced tax pros (who should have the means and ability to do their own research) or do we welcome newbies who need some guidance in research? I strongly believe it is the latter and I sense it is the overwhelming opinion of regular posters. This leads me to wonder why this discussion should even be necessary. As the recent recipient of a "Search the Yellow Box" command, which turned out to be over-zealous on the commander's part, I think a wee bit of humility would not go amiss. For my part, I will be more cautious about accepting that person's responses as credible in future and that is a shame.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2011
Silly Wabbit. This site is about avoiding research...♫

Polgara (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2011
Be careful that you don't anger the yellow box Guru. Kevin is all seeing and all knowing;)

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2011
Maybe we should search the piano bar that Dennis provides with his note.

Taxaway (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2011
Location, location, location...Put the yellow box right next to 'start a new tax question.' I like the idea of Kevin being the yellow box enforcer, it helps to keep identical questions together in one thread. Though he can be snippy at times!

Taxaway (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM2yj1_vBDE

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2011
One suggestion for more successful searching might be to catalog or classify postings by sub tax category. That may be a bit complicated to manage though.

No 2 circumstances are exactly alike.

I know I for 1 do not like to write a novel when I post a question. I have a very specific concern or thought that hasn't been previously addressed even if the topic has been discussed. Sometimes its just a what would you do type of question. If there is no ready answer, I would assume that other professionals don't know either.

No-one deserves the "you dummy, you should know this" answer.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2011
No, if you push the "new topic" button under "tax" or "accounting", you should get an immediate, full-screen yellow box with a banner that says,"Did you do a search first?" Only after you say "Yes" do you get to post your new topic. Now, you could program an adjustable delay into the shift from the Giant Yellow Box to the post screen so that the moderators could penalize anyone who habitually asks a question without searching first. Maximum possible delay might be, say, two weeks...

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2011
Taxaway: it helps to keep identical questions together in one thread.

Except it leaves you stuck with the subject line that someone else decided to give it, and may have less chance of being answered. Everybody is attracted by something new like The End of the Forum :( . Certainly, there must have been a discussion of stupid questions before, but no reason JR1 needs to take his old thought with a new spin and tag on to an old post. I've noticed that new comments/questions on aging posts get little response. Or, if I see my question addressed a couple of years ago, I have to wonder if any of the laws have changed since then. The beauty of being able to 'search' on a computer is that it can be anywhere in any number of posts, not just in ONE post. Whereas, with paper filing, if it's not in the right folder, it won't be found.

NMexEA: Maximum possible delay might be, say, two weeks...

Guess that leaves out an April 14 question. That's about the time you need one of FStein's gimmes! ; )

Illini (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2011
yellow box???? I still can't find it. I see a white box with a yellow border though.....could that be IT?

BruceH (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
"Apparently every conceivable question, and even those inconceivable, has been asked. And answered"

That is exactly what the man who was the head of the US Patent Office told the US President 1900!

WE CAN CUT THE BUDGET BY CLOSING THE US PATENT OFFICE!

EVERYTHING THAT IS EVER GOING TO BE INVENTED HAS ALREADY BEEN INVENTED!

IS this Kevin a relative?

BruceH (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
Who is this Kevin?

KCPA (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
Don't you mean "Where is this Kevin?" I haven't seen a post from him for several days. Unusual for tax season?

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
Kevin is The Grand Poobah of the Yellow Box.

Yt1300inHtown (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
TaxDude (talk

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
Every time I want to agree with the multitude, I see discussions like the current one on passive losses, where it looks like the poster wants a course in the subject.

Illini (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
That's because passive losses are the eighth wonder of the world and even more mysterious than the Sphinx or the Pyramids.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
D&T, maybe an IGNORE button would be in order!  ; ) Those in the know are quite attractive to those striving to get there.  : )

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 28, 2011
I would love an ignore button for a handful of folks I never want to interact with...but I don't think the Wiki platform works for that.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
I tend to read replies from people like JAD and Harry Boscoe so made the mistake of finding out what was going on. I should have ignored the thread.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
and by the way, anyone notice that Dave Fogel has answered the same question about converting passive rental to personal property three or four times in the past month,,,,,each time from someone different. They make statues out of saints like him.

Tax Writer (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
Dave Fogel has answered the same question about converting passive rental to personal property three or four times in the past month,,,,,each time from someone different. They make statues out of saints like him.

I agree! Dave is a pillar of patience, knowlege and humility... for me, it was love at first sight! Or maybe jealousy?

I'm pretty impressed by KatieJ, too. I wish I could trade brains with her for a few weeks in March.

DaveFogel (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
More like 3-4 times in the past WEEK. And regarding patience, I'm not bald for nothing --- all that patience went towards pulling out all of my hair!

Illini (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
I'd lend you mine if it were there....

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2011
And more important, Dave has given the same answer each time!!!!

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

29 March 2011
Dave and Randy, I'd be happy to share with you (hair that is, if I pulled all the gray I could help two bald men and still have plenty black hair left to spare).

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

29 March 2011
Converting passive to personal has become the Earnest Money of this year's question. I think our glorious leader Kevin called these 'fast elephants.' Discussion: The Fast Elephant

Flybynight (talk|edits) said:

29 March 2011
Basic questions are great and I'm happy to answer them (although I lack Dave's patience for doing so repeatedly), but is it too much to ask that someone read the applicable code section and regs (or at least skim over the federal tax handbook)? I understand that PAL's are a pain, but there's a ton of documentation on the subject (including a pretty comprehensive ATG) and it would be nice if people at least went over some portion of that documentation so that we can discuss the topic in a coherent manner. Otherwise, there isn't a big difference between a "consumer" question and "tax professional" question if said tax professional finds reading the code and other reference material anathema.

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

29 March 2011
Not sure if reading codes and regs is anathema, but it's downright confusing sometimes. I have these two really big books of tax code written on very thin paper in very tiny writing. The only other thing that can confuse me more at times is reading the geneaology of someone in the bible when it gets into who begat whom from the begotten member of the forgotten tribe that moved to Los Angeles.

Last night I was reading, yet again, about S corp shareholders renting office space in their home to themselves. Just when I think I have it, there is always a sentence that seems to say "But no you can't do this." I thank everyone who has the knowledge and patience to help sort out all these issues. I'm just not sure I'll ever be that person.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

29 March 2011
Actionbsns: Just when I think I have it, there is always a sentence that seems to say "But no you can't do this.

I feel that way, too...the more you read sometimes, the more confusing it gets. Why I like to come here for opinions and experiences of others willing to share. :)

Flybynight (talk|edits) said:

29 March 2011
I don't mean that you need to spend hours going through the code and I agree that the bible reference is particularly apt sometimes :). I find subchapter K to be a confusing morass that constantly seems to elude my full understanding (to the extent that anyone can fully understand it anyway). Just that people skim over the material so that we can discuss it without having to, as noted by D&T, provide a course on the subject.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

29 March 2011
FBN, I guess I've missed some of those really stupid questions. Hard to believe someone wouldn't check any sources before asking others. I can ask a much better question if I poke around a bit on the subject. The kind of person who would come here and ask without any effort on their own part is probably the same kid who came to school on test day asking to borrow a No. 2 pencil from his classmate.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

29 March 2011
There is always the option to just ignore.

And I never brought pencils to school.

NMexEA (talk|edits) said:

29 March 2011
It's very hard, maybe hopeless, to extract the law just from reading Code. Regs can help if you find the right Reg and there's an example to guide you. Truth is, though, tax practitioners really need formal basic and regular continuing education to know even what questions to ask. Congress is supposed to consider the President's call for a major tax overhaul...sure. Right after all those special interests get together and agree to allow their oxen to be gored.

Flybynight (talk|edits) said:

30 March 2011
It's not just special interests, it's everyone. My typical conversation about a "flat tax" to simplify the code:

A: We need to be able to fit our tax returns onto a postcard, the current complexity is strangling business in America.

FBN: That's a great idea. Of course, we'll need to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credit, charitable contributions, tax-free medical benefits from employers...

A: Hold on a second, let's not be crazy here.

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

30 March 2011
I would trade Schedule A for a flat tax of 20%.

MilTaxEA (talk|edits) said:

30 March 2011
It would increase my tax bill significantly. I'm in a negative tax bracket right now. Thank you all for helping support me and family with CTC and EIC. :)

In all honesty, what would happen the year a fair/flat tax went into effect? Could you imagine the outcry from the number of people now who are like me and are in a negative/low tax bracket? Plus, you would still have a complicated tax code due to many different exceptions that are bound to occur (gift tax? how to determine net SE income? etc.).

Flybynight (talk|edits) said:

30 March 2011
I agree, but I don't know how low the rate would need to be to generate the same amount of income. Plus, the switch from a progessive tax system to a flat tax system would either require a large standard deduction or really hurt low income individuals. Even a huge standard deduction wouldn't replace all the current entitlements for low income taxpayers (I use that term loosely here, since they pay no federal income tax at all), so we'd need to create a new "Welfare Office" to keep doling out the benefits, but it just wouldn't involve the tax code.

Actually, that sounds about right.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 30, 2011
C'mon folks, they discovered the cookie jar in 1986 and there's no going back. The politicos earn points and dollars playing with the code's insertions and deletions. No way they're stopping. And give up the mortgage deductions? Watch the real estate market die completely. It's already terminal. And charities? Not everybody donates out of the goodness of their hearts...

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

30 March 2011
Why have a standard deduction at all? $10,000 exemption per person. Family of 4 pays no tax on the first $40,000, 20% on the excess.

The only reason Congress makes their living adding to and deleting from the tax code is because we let them.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2011
AEM, the reality is, the first person of a household's unit cost to get by is the greatest. When you add a spouse, the house payment, real estate taxes, fire insurance, etc., all stay the same. So, the average cost for 2 is much less than one. And, a small child added to the extra bedroom, lowers the cost per person down even more. It's like going out to eat with a group, and those who had filet mignon and 3 cocktails want to equally divide the bill cause it's easier, when you just had a burger and coke. It seems the IRS is aiming to be fair on many issues, but they go about it in such a convoluted way. I wish every rule and regulation had a real-world example to explain what they mean. I'm happy to comply if I can just figure out what they want.  ;) ... Why it's great to come here for others' input! Kevin's Yellow Search Box is quite worth it!!  :)

Flybynight (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2011
True, but it doesn't make that much sense to reduce the exemption for married couples, even if they do share the cost of stamps. Otherwise you create a marriage penalty for those who are married and both earn over 10k. Granted, you'd get a marriage bonus if the spouse didn't work. Sure, we do that under our current tax system and it's retarded.

I think many european countries have everyone file taxes as "single", so that getting married has no effect on your tax liability. This seems like the way to go, instead of having a family exemption, just have everyone file. If there's a child, split the tax credit between the parents.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2011
FBN: even if they do share the cost of stamps.

Hmmm, stamps and mortgage payments...they have a lot in common!  ; )

Talk about marriage penalty... look at the taxability of Social Security benefits..$25k for Single; $32 for couples. I now know why they stay single!!

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2011
FBN, you just hit on the single biggest reason for complexity in our tax code: social engineering. "Fair" is not always good policy.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2011
CaptC: "Fair" is not always good policy.
:(

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2011
"Good" is not alway "fair." Depends on whose social engineering it is, doesn't it? EIC = depletion.

Or to quote Rattigan's The Winslow Boy: "No, not justice. Right. Easy to do justice. Very hard to do right."

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2011
D&T: EIC = depletion

I agree!! I can't believe this has not stopped in this economy!  :(

Doug M (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2011
JR1 has created a thread that has had 2,000 eyeballs, 116 replies, all in about a week. Completely non-tax related. Gotta love it.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2011
Ah, ah, ah, Doug...that would be 4,000 eyeballs!  ; ) JR1 attracted my attention with his interesting subject line..I was afraid he was leaving!

Doug M (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2011
Oh so true....the problem with this thread is that if you type "yellow box" in the yellow box, there will be two hits......this thread and Kevin's discussion page.

Ddoshan (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2011
Our fearless, hipoycritical, silly, petty, idealogical, brainless elected leaders can't even agree on the time of day let alone actually doing something necessary and productive as streamlining the incredibly complex tax code and system. And I hope I did not have to many misspelled words in my statement.

What scares me even more is the fact that we elect them.

Growthguy2 (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2011
"Apparently every conceivable question, and even those inconceivable, has been asked. And answered."

Kinda reminds me of:

"All the songs have been sung

All the wrongs have been done

Time now for

Me to go

Time now for

Start the show"

Sorry... too many hours :<}

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2011
Quite different than Charles Manson's version:


All the songs have been sung

All the saints have been hung

The wars and cries have been wailed

All the people have been jailed.


We've wailed our cries, and now everyone has had a chance to comment on the Yellow Search Box! :) Thank you JR1!

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

2 April 2011
Besides the hated 'yellow box,' TA does provide 'Research Resources' and opening that gets you to a copy of the IRC that does need a bit of updating, but lots of other good things too like IRS Pubs, where one of the 'ask first and research later' babies could have found a simple answer to his question tonight. Cripes, it almost jumped off the page at me.....but look, he did not....he preferred others look for him.

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

2 April 2011
If they must be, saints should not be "hung"; they should be "hanged."

Charlie M. needs a copy editor.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

2 April 2011
Why does the IRC need updating, and who does it and is there anyway others of us could assist updating it?

Not that I look. For my motto is 'you do not need to know where to look, but rather, whom to ask in the most gracious way that will get you the answer'

And truly, the info in some of the heads here is simply amazing. I've been a CPA for 20 years, but am still a newbie to the complex tax world. I feel I know quite a bit, but damnnnnnnn.

OCNumberz (talk|edits) said:

2 April 2011
Spell Czech: Charlie M. needs a copy editor.

Charlie M. need a hangin' !  ; ) Imagine our tax money spent on him since 1969.


D&T, I love to research concepts I don't understand, but when I'm under time constraints, my mind goes fuzzy, and I want one of Fstein's gimmes. Most of the IRC leaves me with the feeling I'm missing something, and it's great to come here and have the tax brainiacs lend a much-appreciated hand.  :)

If books were perfect, we wouldn't need mentors!

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
I thought I'd revive this discussion (found via the yellow box), since I didn't want to start another discussion with the same topic.

Last week I expressed my shock (and awe) at the fact that Intuit has been copying our valuable tax discussions from this site and posting them on other sites. Perhaps some of those sites are subscription - tax pros pay to subscribe to research. Perhaps some of those sites are consumer - Intuit's consumer clients may access certain forums.

In any event, I have decided not to post any more tax answers, opting instead to only make political and conversational posts. I also decided not to waste 3 to 4 hours a day monitoring this site for spam, malfeasance, and other bad actions.

A co-moderator made a prediction that the spammers would take over, bog the site down, and that Intuit would then have a reason to shut down the site and migrate everyone over to some other discussion 'community'.

I truly believe that will happen. Just take a look at all of the fun that the spammers are having: http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Special:RecentChanges

Podolin (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
Whoa! I am too old, and my heart is too weak, for even a slight chance that TA will be shut down. Cut it out, willya?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

July 1, 2013
You and all of Crow's alteregos should have an amazing time on political and conversational posts...that alone could be one forum!


Thanks for all you've done. Looking at that link, it's obviously a lot of frickin' work keeping this thing useful and cleaned up.


Here here. Have a scotch on me.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
It has gotten progressivly worse, JR1. Today there have been 10 spam posts for each legitimate TaxAlmanac user post. Intuit chose to not implement several anti-spam measures (like a CAPTCHA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA) over a year ago, presumably for their own valid reasons. We were led to believe that something would happen this year after April 15th, but that too hasn't happened.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

July 1, 2013
I've been complaining for years that if one of their people would just step out of the building and USE what they make US use...things would be different. Why can't I customize my toolbar in ProSeries like every other freakin' program in the world has done for ten years? So I can clear out the crap I never use, 2/3 of it, add another printer icon so I can easily pick between two without 12 clicks...etc. etc.

Sorry, gotta keep saying it until they read it and do something.

JAD (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
They never responded to my detailed response to Mindy when Lacerte was scrambling to convince us all that the Minnesota thing was being handled. They do not care as long as the invoice gets paid.

http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion:Minnesota_warns_against_using_Intuit_Products

I just read this thread. I missed the original.

http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion:HEY,_is_Intuit_selling_our_discussions%3F

I am not surprised but not happy. I don't think Intuit cares about what we think. We need our own site where we can manage our own discussions. It needs to be password protected. As a sole practitioner, this site has been tremendously helpful to me. Sometimes I need a nudge when I am in an area that is new or that I haven't worked with for a long time. Sometimes just bouncing ideas off another professional is so helpful. I think that it is time to look for a forum that is less commercialized. I'll bet that some of the professional organizations like the AICPA or the CSCPA have online discussions. Still, I think it would be better if this community could create its own site because we wouldn't separate ourselves by type of license or which organization we belong to.

JAD (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
I tried to entice my son into looking into setting something up, but I don't think that I can entice him away from his summer activities.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

July 1, 2013
I agree. What this place has done for me professionally is nothing short of amazing. It's made me about as smart as some folks think I am, has really made me step up my standards in every arena, given me access to people who really ARE smart, like Kevin, Lenny, Chris and many others, created some genuine friendships which have led to actual real life encounters, and just helped keep my mind sharp(er)...oh, and I've gotten a couple clients from here, too!

Wiles (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
If all y'all go elsewhere, will you please leave me a breadcrumb trail.

With that being said, I do not see this as an offense worthy of leaving TA. The internet community already has access to all the stuff. How many great contributors has TA picked up in the last few years because this site is open to the public? A password-protected, invite-only forum would slowly fade away.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

1 July 2013
One of the ways that the USA (through the NSA) knew the Chinese were spying on us is that a Chinese spy could not resist making a visit to Facebook. From Facebook, they were able to trace him back to his liar.

Like most of what happens on the internet, it doesn't start out as something intentional.

Once you can get enough cattle coralled into one spot, it's hard to resist the urge to collect the manure and to sell it. I have no doubt the government keeps a close eye on this site. We are read by leaders from all over the world. Valimir Putin's U.S. tax preparer has visited more than once.

"AICPA or the CSCPA" The NSA has already told them that if they get more than a 100,000 forum members, they want a piece of it. I am just kidding, I think.

Intuit owns us, legally. Nothing shady about it. I have wasted my genius.  :) I'll have some of my trenchant words reduced to ad copy one day, I have no doubt of it.

Cryptographer Bruce Scheier covers it all in this fantastic interview: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/video/Bruce-Schneier-explains-why-there-is-no-privacy-on-the-Internet

Welcome back to the Dark Ages, fellow serfs. There is no exit unless you go back to the reliable file cabinet and the unconnected computer. I told everyone here more than once to short their practice and to buy Intuit. Remember, there is no exit, and if they want to get you in your car they can, I really mean no exit. They can already control your cruise control. They can turn it on.

Get an old truck while you still can. Tax is the least of your worries.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Wiles, I'm not leaving, I'm just being judicious about answering questions. While I didn't mind giving back to the community of tax professionals on this free site, I earn a living by helping consumers, and I highly object to giving free answers to consumers who would otherwise pay you or me. Similarly, I earn a living (of sorts) teaching CE classes to other tax pros. Intuit copying my answers and posting those to other sites to which they charge admission allows them to profit from my knowledge, but not me. I object to that.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
If you get together with other people on the internet, and if enough people join you, then you are a sucker.

I know this and I'm here pulling the feet out from underneath my own me every day I'm here. But I can't blame Intuit. No matter where I go if there are enough people there, there is no privacy and probably no ownership of one's own person. And what we leave here is our eternal person, according to the computer eggheads.

Please don't think that a paid membership and a password will protect you either. It won't.

I urge people to listen to the Schneier interview if you haven't already done so. Even if you don't like me, listen to him. He is well respected in the industry. If you don't own an old truck, you should be out tommorrow trying to find one. Some thing real, with no computers and no cruise control. There are unsubstaniated rumors that a pesky reporter was killed last week by his own car, if you get my drift.

P.S. For God's sake, don't buy your truck off Ebay.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Intuit copying my answers and posting those to other sites to which they charge admission allows them to profit from my knowledge, but not me. I object to that.

Are you saying that Intuit hasn't been sending a check to you each week? I thought we were all getting them.

JAD (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
What would I do without this site, which provides the discussion that causes me to laugh out loud at surprising moments, as the conversation turns?

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
I'm here all night. Thank you, thank you very much.

Joanmcq (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
This forum has the best concentration of tax genius in one place and has been invaluable to me. It's where I can usually find an answer to the hard questions, the esoteric questions, and get a giggle besides.

As far as forming a closed community, when CCH bought ATX and abruptly closed down the forum in the midst of tax season, we did just that, and have our own, donation-run, closed, unsearchable (on the outside) forum. So many of the constant posters have gone onto other software that it aint just for ATX users anymore.

[1]

 Shame on Intuit!

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Take it from me, there is an advantage to making frequent posts. The government (and everyone else) gets tired of reading what you have to say. "Oh, him again..." When the government collects my trash, they empty it.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Joan says:

"As far as forming a closed community, when CCH bought ATX and abruptly closed down the forum in the midst of tax season, we did just that, and have our own, donation-run, closed, unsearchable (on the outside) forum. So many of the constant posters have gone onto other software that it aint just for ATX users anymore.

[1]

Shame on Intuit!"

I'm already a member of that forum. I found it while searching for issues related to the TRX nightmare. They recently added a Taxwise forum because many former TRX users switched to it.

The layout of that forum is very easy to use plus you can only change/delete your own posts (unless you're a moderator).

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
"You License All Rights to Intuit: You irrevocably grant a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, unlimited, royalty-free, sublicenseable, transferable, assignable license, without a right to ever terminate such license, to Intuit Inc. to copy, modify, distribute, publish and otherwise use and commercialize Your edits and other contributions in any manner now known or in the future discovered. You are free to refrain from ever submitting any contributions. If You decide to submit contributions, You remain free to continue to use them otherwise as if You had never submitted them to the Site. However, You cannot terminate this license once You have submitted contributions to the Site."

(courtesy of SunwunLost)

I never bothered to read this, but it is not a surprise. It's like my internet friend Bruce said, people don't come to sites like this to read legal stuff, they come to talk.

It's not really shame on Intuit, it's shame on us. THEY got my goat again. Dagnabbit. Oh, and do not look at this: [Alarm! Alarm! Alert! Alert! Delete! D e l e t e d.] Jeez I never thought these guys would be so touchy. I've run straight into their Wall.

Any site, a n y site which can achieve enough numbers will sell you out. What? Are you going to run around the country and try to enforce something like privacy? Using our antiquated court system to do it? And this applies double to any private group of volunteers who all must come and go. They don't start out with the intent to sell you out, but they come and they go.

Even I am having a hard time grasping the eternal nature of this very sentence which I don't own anymore. But even if I did own it, can I really enforce my ownership?

Supdat (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
I really like this site, the community is great. I hope it does not go away.

While I didn't mind giving back to the community of tax professionals on this free site, I earn a living by helping consumers, and I highly object to giving free answers to consumers who would otherwise pay you or me. I would want to know more about what Intuit is doing with the threads. I don't think most consumers would find our discussions helpful. We aren't talking to them, we are talking to our peers.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
If a Turbo Tax person can pay $42 or $49 for the software, and have access to our discussions on a Turbo Tax discussion forum, then they have gotten our answers without paying us for them.

Not all consumers are tax naive, many only use a tax pro because they're not confident in their own answers. With access to our answers, they may feel more confident (even if they don't fully understand our answers).

Supdat (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
They can have our answers without paying for them (via this forum) regardless of whether they have access to our discussions through Turbo Tax. But I do get your point that it leaves somewhat of a bad taste if Turbo is making money off of our discussions. The only alternative to reduce the chances of that happening would be to start our own forum providing access by approval only. However, besides requiring someone to carry the ball on that, the community size would necessarily shrink.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Maybe it was Intuit's plan all along to provide consumers access to the tax pro discussions. They don't charge us for this forum, maybe that is the price we pay for this resource.

Illini (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
were you in Miami Kevin? I did not see you there.

CathysTaxes (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
Consumers may have access to those forums, but what about if they have any questions? If they ask them there, we certainly aren't going to respond and if they come here, we usually can spot them a mile away.

I know consumer questions on this forum are moved to a certain area. I'm certainly going to make sure that I don't respond to any of them.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
No, I was teaching at the Georgia Association of Accountants and Tax Professionals' convention at Callaway Gardens, Pine Mountain, GA. I taught 5 topics, all of which were received very well.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
But Randy, if you want to come to the ILNATP conference in November, I should be there too. Peoria this year, not Bloomington.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

July 2, 2013
Intuit could give major contributors discounts on renewals. . .Right, as Cosby said.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

2 July 2013
I think this is more of a great big the sky is falling than anything else. Kevin, you are an addict sir. You tried to stop and not 10 minutes later, a mere 10, three you were posting answers. lol.

And Kevin, don't think of it as stealing from you, but look at it as they are promoting you. When other professionals see your name and the answers you give, then when they see your classes, the name rings a bell. You know I enjoy busting on you, but not this time. I really don't think it is as bad as you make it seem. Is intuit a great big uncaring monolith, absolutely, but TA is ours and TA will always be ours. The regulars and the passerby people who know taxes appreciate the effort.

As for consumers, I am all for a more informed consumer base. Yes, some will prepare their own taxes, but at the same time, it will also click the light on for those smart enough to understand that if we struggle with something, they shouldn't even try. In addition, DIYers are awesome, because anyone more than a simple Schedule A will eventually get that CP2000 and then you charge the higher fix it rate.

I am staying and I will taunt Kevin until he agrees to stay. And then, I shall taunt him a second time. Kersnickety.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

27 November 2013
The sky is indeed falling, Fred. Notice how slow the forum has been lately?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

27 November 2013
Discussion: T/A keeps bankers hours

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

27 November 2013
Damn Cats need to die

MWPXYZ (talk|edits) said:

27 November 2013
What are the alternatives? TaxBook forum?

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

28 November 2013
It's down time and the topics have been rather boring! Things will pick up for those of you who have little charge time soon.......

Have a safe and Happy Thanksgiving!

And remember - take a taxi or call a tow truck if you need one.

No drinking and driving!!!

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

28 November 2013
Boring...we'll see about that. I have a 'barre' class in the a.m....

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

21 April 2014
Props to JR1 for foreseeing the true end.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2014
Props? He simply made a self fulfilling prophesy

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2014
well, I said 'props' because he doesn't have jets, just props.

I think you support the Jets, am I right, Fred?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

April 22, 2014
Actually only a sail.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

23 April 2014
Yes I do. Kevin, have you signed onto the new improved, temporarily without a yellow box TA yet?

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

23 April 2014
Whose goina corect all the mispellings and bad grammer on the new, improved TA?

I've never felt so .. so .. so .. so FREE!

Nilodop (talk|edits) said:

24 April 2014
Is it possible for one person to have good grammer and bad speling?

Nilodop (talk|edits) said:

24 April 2014
Or badly grammar and well spelling.

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

24 April 2014
If writers were prouder of their *content* I assure you they would strive to reduce their "bad speling" and their "badly grammar". Here's how it works: every time a reader is distracted by a spelling error or, for that matter, *anything* in the written text that might have been avoided had the writer paid a little bit more attention, it is the *writer's* loss, as it distracts from the effectiveness of his writing.

It's the writer's fault and it's to his detriment, when a reader's ability to read and comprehend smoothly and easily is interrupted and challenged by unnecessary glitches that were put in, and left in, buy the writer - whether those glitches are spelling mistakes, weak grammar, misused words, run-on sentences, etc., and so on and so forth, do you get what I'm saying?

Did any of you notice how distracting my use of the word "buy" was - when I should have written "by"? I would suggest that the mis-used word damaged my message because it distracted the reader.

And now you're just about ready to go off on me about "misused" and "mis-used". Did I make my point?

FLAcct (talk|edits) said:

24 April 2014
Spell Czech - Over at the new forum (TaxProTalk.com) there's a topic in the Forum Usage section about you. Have you read it?

Frankly (talk|edits) said:

24 April 2014
Your point is well made. Poor writing detracts from the message being communicated. Some errors are so egregious as to make one wonder how qualified the writer is in dispensing tax advice.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

24 April 2014
I've always remembered what someone told me about singing a song and reaching an audience. You could be the most heartfelt, genuine songwriter with a real knack for turning a phrase, but it doesn't matter if you sing off key.

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

24 April 2014
"Have you read it?" asks FLAcct.
I read everything, man, everything.
And I prefer it when they spell my name correctly.

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

25 April 2014
I must agree with Citizen S.C. here. Baudelaire refused to take either the Republican or revolutionary position during the revolution of 1848. Why? Because he had already pointed out in one of his published Salons that we must preserve 'the perfume and the roses,' meaning the perfume and roses of the Republic.

We must indeed preserve the perfume and the roses. Form is a matter that requires the occasional admission of defeat and repentance, rather than a casual gesture of flippancy on our part (easy for me to say, of course, as I rarely err in the expression of our common and noble tongue).

Much as I may want to, I cannot find a way to disagree with my friend, much as I want to do so. Admittedly, I have been harnessed, but not muzzled.

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

25 April 2014
"...harnessed, but not muzzled."

It's stuff like this we love you for, Gaz.

Wiles (talk|edits) said:

25 April 2014
And I prefer it when they spell my name correctly.

Much as I may want to, I cannot find where your name was misspelled my friend, much as I want to do so.

ChrisV2 (talk|edits) said:

25 April 2014
To be fair, out of sheer horror when I saw that Spell Czech made that comment, I did correct the improper concatenation of the two distinct words in his (or her) name. We were writing "SpellCzech," which was improper.


I fixed it, and apologize for the infraction.

Spell Czech (talk|edits) said:

25 April 2014
Aaah. Finally. Someone helping me do my job.

...someone encroaching on my territory!

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

25 April 2014
Well, we are getting to this point of this forum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkWn4--RmEk

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

26 April 2014
Well said David! Nice song....

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

April 26, 2014
That's our theme song as tax accountants!

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

29 April 2014
And another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtGxusvUT3k

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

29 April 2014
Love it! I sing that song all the time....

Gazoo (talk|edits) said:

30 April 2014
The topic of the consumer threat on a pro forum: I say it's much ado about nothing.

Exactly what the consumer does NOT want is the correct information, for cryin' out loud; what they DO want is to cheat, and they can spend a lot of time with the software "massaging" the numbers and scenarios until they get a good number to send the govment.

I think all of the NSA 'daring do' in the news has got people here gun shy about spies and other such stuff. Have no fear, the consumer can't handle the truth.

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