|
What was that people said about properly vetting | by Classic_Jon | 2009-02-03 12:21:00 |
|
I think a friend nailed it... | by DesertRat66 | 2009-02-03 12:30:25 |
|
At least they still slink off when caught. | by esbita | 2009-02-03 12:58:59 |
|
But will they be held accountable is the real | by Classic_Jon | 2009-02-03 13:03:27 |
|
Really? Do you have evidence that they | by vdp | 2009-02-03 13:06:51 |
|
I love how you just jumped off a cliff with that. | by Classic_Jon | 2009-02-03 13:20:44 |
|
Maybe I misread, but since all of them have | by vdp | 2009-02-03 13:25:52 |
|
Give you an example of myself. | by Classic_Jon | 2009-02-03 13:40:08 |
| Why? |
by vdp |
2009-02-03 14:21:41 |
Why did they not react the same way here?
Because in your case they lost the record of you actually having paid any taxes, and in their case they had records of taxes having been paid.
Why was it not caught before?
Maybe because they were not audited? AFAIK, unless you are being audited, your tax return is taken at face value. Do you think that they should have been audited?
Will They be held accountable *IF* they did it knowingly. Will they have a more indepth investigation done to see if there are MORE issues? Will they investigate the people that filed the original information to see if they did so intentionally?
What is the SOP for the IRS when someone files an amended return, and paying previously unpaid taxes? Does that trigger an automatic investigation or an audit? I don't know, but I doubt it, because it is in the interest of the IRS to encourage people to pay past taxes voluntarily, and an automatic audit/investigation will deter those who may have made an honest mistake (not claiming that Obama's nominees made an honest mistake). If my assumption is correct, then you are actually advocating special treatment for public office nominees, asking for automatic audit because they filed amended tax returns.
My other questions revolve around where the media is in all of this. Why are they not circling like vultures? This is *news* isn't it?
Are you kidding? It's all over the news. It is being reported that it was a New York Times editorial that convinced Daschle to withdraw. Maybe you need to read the NYT more regularly :-P |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Normally, if you file a *large* amendment | by Classic_Jon | 2009-02-03 14:31:11 |
|
Yes, interest and fees were charged | by vdp | 2009-02-03 15:51:57 |
|
Perhaps you missed this? | by DesertRat66 | 2009-02-03 17:22:13 |
|
No, I didn't | by vdp | 2009-02-03 20:23:03 |
|
Only for 2003 and 2004 | by DesertRat66 | 2009-02-03 20:50:22 |
|
And how many angels can dance on a tax form? | by firehawk | 2009-02-03 23:25:55 |
