I am a tax protestor. Lets talk

[Dr. Caligari]

Does anyone actually think that Juiceman is ever going to come back to respond to any of the posts answering his "questions"?

[Cpt Banjo]

The poster doth protest too much, methinks. He is arguing that GM is too big to fail, despite his denial, and I find it fundamentally disturbing. It's not that I like the prospect of GM's failure; I don't. But I think government bailouts set an extremely bad precedent for the economy. Part of having a market system involves companies going out of business for one reason or another (I dimly recall from my econ courses Schumpeter's theory of "creative destruction"), and it bothers me that people who run large companies in the future might not be as prudent as they should if they think they can always count on the government to save them.

I'm also not naive enough to think that the government won't do something to bail GM out. But it seems to me that GM's problem is different only in degree, not in kind, from that of blacksmiths, horse traders, and the manufacturers of coaches, wagons, horseshoes, and buggy whips, all of whom went out of business when GM became a success. And it's that degree that gets the attention of the politicians.

[Imalawman]

Personally, I think the IRS is being very taxpayer friendly with these rules. Too much? well, I think it isn't contrary to statute and I think it is a good policy considering the financial situation that we are face with.

For opposing views regarding the Service’s authority to do what it did in Notice 2008-83, see

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428410507346351.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

I confess to some unease in questioning the authority of a pro-taxpayer measure such as Notice 2008-83, but I honestly don't see how it's consistent with the statutory language. I further admit that I utilize similar goodies that appear to have absolutely no statutory authorization [warning: tax geek reference ahead] (e.g., a Section 338(h)(10) election for an S corporation target).

Maybe it's the whole bailout atmosphere, which really rubs me the wrong way. I feel like the TV commentator in Airplane! (patterned after James J. Kilpatrick's appearances on 60 Minutes), who said, "Shana, they bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eux_bzpJHiY

I feel the same way about the businesses whose own greed got themselves into trouble: I say, let 'em fail. And the same goes for all the companies that are encamped in Washington as we speak, with their hands out begging for a bailout to save themselves from competition and their own ineptitude (e.g., GM and Ford).

I will get off my soapbox now.

No, I fully agree the decisions make me a little uncomfortable. But honestly, I haven't really sat down and thoroughly analyzed everything the IRS has done to come to a conclusory position. My gut reaction is to support pro-taxpayer measures, but not at the expense of the IRS become arbitrary in its enforcement.

As I sit here in Northwestern U's law library I have my codebook turned to 338(h)(10)! How funny that you would point that out. I am looking into the August 2008 proposed regulations which would considerably expand the availability of the approach taken by 338(h)(10). Basically it appears to provide some relief for the situation in which gain is recognized because a spinoff has failed non-recognition under section 355(d) or 355(e). Otherwise, gain triggered under those provision provides no basis to any party in transaction, so a step-up in basis of the distributed target results.

[Duke2Earl]

My question is far simpler. I am unable to understand why whether or not the car companies are bailed out or whether the banks get a pass on 382 has anything whatsoever to do with whether an individual owes income tax on his income. If the point is that it isn't fair... OK... so what? If one is looking for fairness... one better hope so for their next life because they aren't going to find it here.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Sadly, you really, really don't want GM to go bely up. It would be bad m'kay?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27660635/site/14081545

Why A Bankrupt GM Is A Horrible Idea
Posted By:Phil LeBeau
Topics:Economy (U.S.) | Economy (Global) | Automobile Industry
Sectors:Automobiles and Parts
Companies:General Motors Corp
....

Although this is straying a bit away from the TP's original issues, it is fair to point out that any entity being pushed into bankruptcy is more than just partially responsible for getting there. It didn't happen overnight. Somebodies took their eyes off the ball. Bad decisions were made. Consider the debacle of buying their computer services provider - EDS - from Ross Perot then spinning it off a few years later. And operating a mortgage company (GMAC) that is still circling the drain even after offloading it. GM nearly tanked back in the early 90's and they forced Stempel out. Then there's the $8.7Billion loss in 2005.

What goes 'round comes' round.

[juiceman]

Does anyone actually think that Juiceman is ever going to come back to respond to any of the posts answering his "questions"?

Oh I'm here, just not until late at night, and not more than once a night.

That was a rather overwhelming response to my inquiry. I especially appreciate those who reply with deragatory comments - it lets me know not everyone here is as smart as they think they are.

But again, like I said, I'm not a tax protestor, I'm actually a fine and decent citizen, who got caught under the boot of the IRS due to my ignorance of tax law and the fact I was reeling in a short-lived 6 figure income at the age of 21.

Now, I'm just a poor writer trying to make his way into a new profession while hoping to throw big brother from his back, and taking a few moments to step back and ask why? Why exactly - besides the fact I couldn't pay the 10's and 10's of thousands of dollars that the IRS want(s)ed me too - why is this happening? Thats really the whole purpose to my journey.

So thanks for anyone who actually answered any of my questions. I won't ask anymore within this thread as it has gone off on a tangent.

[.]

As perhaps the lamest exemplar in the last year of a garden-variety, singularly unimaginative troll at least 50 fathoms out of his depth, this poor clown is deserving of an official Quatloos mini-shape-shifting lizard mascot with adjustable tin-foil headgear.

Make him pay extra if he wants the bobble-head version.

[Demosthenes]

besides the fact I couldn't pay the 10's and 10's of thousands of dollars that the IRS want(s)ed me too - why is this happening?

It isn't the IRS that wants you to, it's Congress, and your past struggles with paying taxes are unrelated to the current bailouts.

Are you considering becoming a tax denier?

[Imalawman]

The reason we're not sympathetic to your plight is that we just don't believe stories of the IRS inventing facts and then coming after you for the tax on those facts. Sure, they're wrong many times and we fight them. But I've never heard of the IRS simply manufacturing an offshore account that you never new existed and never heard of and had absolutely no connection with. The IRS has too many real situations to keep them busy to ever go around making stuff up.

Our view is that you got bad advice, tied yourself loosely to an offshore account and got bit by it. If there really was no offshore account, nothing to tie you to the funds, then fight it moron. The IRS would surely lose the case without you having to hardly lift a finger. I can't imagine an appeals officer not settling or dismissing a case where is NO evidence as you suggest. The fact remains, there was evidence and good stuff too. You don't like that you got screwed out of your tax shelter and now your acting like a petulant 5 year old. Get a grip and get working - you're too young to be griping about bad breaks - especially when its just money. Many, many of us on this forum have made money and lost money but you don't hear us griping about how its someone else's fault. We pick up and get going. There, pep talk is done.