Posted on 08/10/2022 7:53:34 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
“CHILLING” ISN’T IT. Be prepared to use deadly force on deadbeat Americans when they don’t pay up. This is a friggin’ joke. Friggin’ Nazis.
Hey Ro, so does your message also include that race baiting Al “I don’t pay my taxes” Sharpton too?
I’m asking for a friend....
Lower income people do not have attorneys or accountants, that is why the IRS targets them. When they get a notice from the IRS, they don’t contest it, they pay it.
It’s too bad they never treated President Trump that way. If they can’t find anything you did wrong, they think something up. This isn’t America anymore.
That makes two of us. The wife and I round up all the paperwork and turn it over to him. He does the calculations and sends my return in. He tells us what we have to pay or how much we’ll be getting back. We prefer it that way.
How about all your money actually belongs to the workers’ socialist collective and what our leaders decide to give back to you will be given according to what you deserve?
Biden aide: Hey, that’s good crap. Which speechwriter wrote it?
“Karl Marx”
They’re not after our tax returns; they don’t need guns for that. They’re going to enforce a cashless society; use your hand (already taking place in some Whole Foods), or an eye recognition, or you won’t be able to buy or sell food, pay your water bill, electric, etc. Read the Book of Revelation. It’s coming.
Good advice. This isn’t America anymore.
Its a bs argument.
Honest people get caught up by law enforcement and courts all the time.
Honest people get framed by law enforcement and courts all the time.
Dear Ro,
You haven't a clue. There's a MASSIVE difference in tax court. To wit...
Someone told me that the petitioner (taxpayer) has the burden of proof. I don't understand this. What is the burden of proof?
The burden of proof is a legal term that refers to a party’s duty to prove a disputed assertion. The burden of proof is generally on the petitioner. This means that you need to bring to court evidence, such as documents and testimony of witnesses (you and maybe others), to prove that the determination of the IRS is not correct and that your position is correct.(emphasis added)
There are some limited circumstances where the burden of proof is on the IRS. For the burden of proof to shift to the IRS on a factual issue, the petitioner must introduce credible evidence in court with respect to that issue. The petitioner must also comply with substantiation and record-keeping requirements set forth in the tax laws. Also the petitioner must show that he or she cooperated with reasonable requests from the IRS for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and interviews. In most cases, the burden of proof does not shift to the IRS and the petitioner must show that the IRS’s determinations are wrong.
And if they give you incorrect advice, you’re still on the hook for following their incorrect advice.
You forgot your /sarc tag
“The US Tax Code is over 70,000 pages, it is unmanageable and subject to interpretation. So if your interpretation disagrees with the IRS they are coming for you.”
Which is why I would never rat on someone being creative with their taxes. I would not do it myself, but I have no problem with people who do.
The US Tax Code is over 70,000 pages, it is unmanageable and subject to interpretation.
`````````````````````````````````
I know from personal experience that if you call the IRS ten different times with the same question, you’ll get ten different answers.
Ro has obviously never been audited or is wealthy enough that his people handle it for them.
Even with a small business return, the cost of complying with an audit (that results in no taxes due) is thousands of dollars in accounting fees and hundreds of hours of my time.
What she failed to mention is that if the IRS doesn’t like you, what you think, what you do, what you say, or how you earn your money, they will initiate actions that will process you to death.
No thanks!
” they will initiate actions that will process you to death.”
Or shoot you.
Maybe because this is in the agents' job description (see post #6): Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary.
Right. I was being facetious.
The IRS has now deleted this requirement on its site. But it’s too late — it’s all over the web. I wonder how KJP will explain this to Doocy tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.