|
Post by blackjohnflint on Jan 18, 2009 15:39:57 GMT -8
Or maybe you just don't like charity, Hank. Here I've been thinking that you were merely misinformed about the tax law governing LLCs' charitable deductions; is there a bit of willful blindness too? I knew this was going to come up sooner or later. Two years ago, when I attempted to take a charitable contribution deduction on an LLC, both TurboTax and the clearly stated tax law at the time (I researched it) told me I could not take the deduction. I do not know if that had changed since then. I just ASSumed that it hadn't. It very well might have. LLCs came about as a state statute. For the purposes of Federal income taxes an LLC must classify itself as a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietor. The IRS did not create a class for LLCs. The answer to the deductability question depends on how the LLC is classified for Federal purposes. (This answer comes from an IRS certified Enrolled Agent who happens to live in my house) So...You could both be right, both be wrong, or any permutation thereof.
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Jan 18, 2009 17:35:09 GMT -8
I knew this was going to come up sooner or later. Two years ago, when I attempted to take a charitable contribution deduction on an LLC, both TurboTax and the clearly stated tax law at the time (I researched it) told me I could not take the deduction. I do not know if that had changed since then. I just ASSumed that it hadn't. It very well might have. LLCs came about as a state statute. For the purposes of Federal income taxes an LLC must classify itself as a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietor. The IRS did not create a class for LLCs. The answer to the deductability question depends on how the LLC is classified for Federal purposes. (This answer comes from an IRS certified Enrolled Agent who happens to live in my house) So...You could both be right, both be wrong, or any permutation thereof. (I know I made a post, where did it go? I typed it, preview it, then hit submit. No post? ) (silly me, it wound up in the quote)
Well, if we had access to the PF, we could see if this came up at all. Sadly, we can not go back and check out what was said.
|
|
|
Post by blackjohnflint on Jan 18, 2009 18:36:01 GMT -8
LLCs came about as a state statute. For the purposes of Federal income taxes an LLC must classify itself as a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietor. The IRS did not create a class for LLCs. The answer to the deductability question depends on how the LLC is classified for Federal purposes. (This answer comes from an IRS certified Enrolled Agent who happens to live in my house) So...You could both be right, both be wrong, or any permutation thereof. (I know I made a post, where did it go? I typed it, preview it, then hit submit. No post? ) (silly me, it wound up in the quote)
Well, if we had access to the PF, we could see if this came up at all. Sadly, we can not go back and check out what was said. I run into the same problem on a board that I'm a moderator of. I go to hit "Quote" but hit "Edit" instead. The board I moderate relates to this: www.fallensword.com/?ref=912834
|
|
|
Post by lilacsunday on Jan 19, 2009 14:21:37 GMT -8
LLCs came about as a state statute. For the purposes of Federal income taxes an LLC must classify itself as a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietor. The IRS did not create a class for LLCs. The answer to the deductability question depends on how the LLC is classified for Federal purposes. (This answer comes from an IRS certified Enrolled Agent who happens to live in my house) So...You could both be right, both be wrong, or any permutation thereof. I agree that the paperwork differs based on the classification. In the end, it's still a question of how, not a question of whether. Or rather, still a question of why I got banned for disagreeing with Turbo Tax.
|
|
|
Post by blackjohnflint on Jan 19, 2009 14:34:22 GMT -8
LLCs came about as a state statute. For the purposes of Federal income taxes an LLC must classify itself as a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietor. The IRS did not create a class for LLCs. The answer to the deductability question depends on how the LLC is classified for Federal purposes. (This answer comes from an IRS certified Enrolled Agent who happens to live in my house) So...You could both be right, both be wrong, or any permutation thereof. I agree that the paperwork differs based on the classification. In the end, it's still a question of how, not a question of whether. Or rather, still a question of why I got banned for disagreeing with Turbo Tax. Turbo Tax used to let you deduct your points and closing costs when you took out a mortgage. That's finee, but it failed to ask you if the mortgage was for a purchase (points deductible in the year the loan was taken out), or if the mortgage was a refinance (points deducted over the life of the loan). It took them 2 years to correct that error.
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Jan 19, 2009 14:43:28 GMT -8
All the more reason to scap our current tax code and adopt something that is more fair and less complicated for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by lilacsunday on Jan 19, 2009 17:35:36 GMT -8
All the more reason to scap our current tax code and adopt something that is more fair and less complicated for everyone. That, and the fact that neither Timothy Geithner, our Treasury Secretary-designate, nor Rep. Charles Rangel, who heads up he committee that writes tax law, seem to be able to get their taxes right...
|
|
|
Post by blackjohnflint on Jan 19, 2009 18:55:43 GMT -8
All the more reason to scap our current tax code and adopt something that is more fair and less complicated for everyone. That, and the fact that neither Timothy Geithner, our Treasury Secretary-designate, nor Rep. Charles Rangel, who heads up he committee that writes tax law, seem to be able to get their taxes right... Those two were not just confused, they were outright cheating.
|
|
|
Post by hank on Jan 20, 2009 13:05:49 GMT -8
[ Or rather, still a question of why I got banned for disagreeing with Turbo Tax. You got banned because you were being the south end of a north-bound donkey about it.
|
|
|
Post by george1861 on Jan 20, 2009 15:57:59 GMT -8
All the more reason to scap our current tax code and adopt something that is more fair and less complicated for everyone. Fair Tax now!
|
|
|
Post by lilacsunday on Jan 20, 2009 16:36:56 GMT -8
[ Or rather, still a question of why I got banned for disagreeing with Turbo Tax. You got banned because you were being the south end of a north-bound donkey about it. Oh, I've really got to object. The most over-the-line thing I said was that I "knew Brookline was a People's Republic, but I didn't know they had their own tax code." I didn't start the fire, I barely fanned it. Did you ban everyone who disagreed with you on tax law?
|
|
|
Post by hank on Jan 20, 2009 17:13:04 GMT -8
You said this: I get the feeling you are getting tax advice from the same person who has so poorly advised you on copyright law. and Charitable donations do not extinguish copyright protections When in fact I NEVER claimed any of those to be applicable. By accepting payment for access to the PF, I ALONE would have been taking on the responsibility and liability for the posting of copyrighted material by others. I never said that one is even remotely related to the other. Instead, you decided that I was an idiot, made simpleton assumptions about my plans or "advice," and then proceeded to give me "nuts" about it. The point was, by charging a modest fee for access to the CLOSED-TO-THE-PUBLIC PF, I would "look the other way" in regards to posting copyrighted material and cartoons. I never once said anything about the legality of it all.
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Jan 20, 2009 17:43:57 GMT -8
Oh, I've really got to object. The most over-the-line thing I said was that I "knew Brookline was a People's Republic, but I didn't know they had their own tax code." I didn't start the fire, I barely fanned it. Did you ban everyone who disagreed with you on tax law? I have to agree with you. I saw this "conversation" in the hours leading up to the Great Boxing Day Massacre. And I didn't think anything you said was overtly out of line. But you can never predict how some people will take the simplest of remarks, especially if they have an issue about disagreement.
|
|
richard
Republican
Bacon!
Posts: 1,412
|
Post by richard on Jan 20, 2009 19:31:10 GMT -8
[ Or rather, still a question of why I got banned for disagreeing with Turbo Tax.
You got banned because you were being the south end of a north-bound donkey about it.And I never did see a "don't be an a-hole" rule...you should have at least clued us in on your definition of "a-hole"...unless it's a habit of yours to change the rules in the middle of the game...
|
|
|
Post by lilacsunday on Jan 20, 2009 20:12:47 GMT -8
You said this: I get the feeling you are getting tax advice from the same person who has so poorly advised you on copyright law. and Charitable donations do not extinguish copyright protections When in fact I NEVER claimed any of those to be applicable. By accepting payment for access to the PF, I ALONE would have been taking on the responsibility and liability for the posting of copyrighted material by others. I never said that one is even remotely related to the other. Instead, you decided that I was an idiot, made simpleton assumptions about my plans or "advice," and then proceeded to give me "nuts" about it. The point was, by charging a modest fee for access to the CLOSED-TO-THE-PUBLIC PF, I would "look the other way" in regards to posting copyrighted material and cartoons. I never once said anything about the legality of it all. You erred in assuming I thought you an idiot. I don't think people are idiots for not knowing the law, I think they are lucrative. I am grateful for them. If everybody knew all the law all the time, there would be no work for lawyers. In terms of how I addressed the issue(s), I started out gently, but eventually I just gave back what I got. Quoth the Lilac: " Charitable donations do not extinguish copyright protections." Yeah, I can see why anyone would get banned for saying that on a board. Quoth the Lilac: " I get the feeling you are getting tax advice from the same person who has so poorly advised you on copyright law." If you're getting the law wrong on two counts, you need a new lawyer. Your lawyer is an idiot, not you. Unless you are acting as your own lawyer, in which case the "fool for a client" maxim always applies. It is unclear what you mean when you say "I never said that one is even remotely related to the other." Are you talking about tax law being unrelated to copyright, or charitable donations? If you are talking about charitable donations, the whole copyright-charity discussion arose when someone (can't remember if it was me, probably was) questioned the legality and long-term viability of an arrangement where people would pay for the privilege of violating copyrights held by others. As I recall, you took umbrage, and insisted that you wouldn't be profiting from the deal, you would donate the money to charity. As if that made it OK. You see, silly me, I was trying to help you, to warn you away from a solution which could have gotten you into legal trouble. I was concerned that your attitude toward copyright (you said at one point that if the PF was restricted access, "it should be OK" to allow copyright violations) posed a threat to the continued existence of the hobby, not just the boards. The fact that you never said anything about the legality of it does not mean that the legality was settled or beyond the reach of reasonable discussion. (Unless I missed the rule providing that Members May Not Address An Issue Unless It Has Been Addressed By Hank.)
|
|