Ford get shafted by the IRS

bobman1235

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

The point I was simply trying to make was that people are so quick to go "Ooooh evil IRS! Oooooh big business out to get you!" Or some combination of the two. The tax code is not perfect, but the people yammering to fix it (often times, read: scrap it altogether) often HAVE NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.

That's because it isn't that simple. It's not that ther'es an "alternative", I don't think taxes should be abandoned, just that the people who are in charge of writing it should work harder to make it simpler. Nor do I think it's a big conspiracy by the man or big business; it's simply that over the past 200+ years of adding and adding we've gotten a rat's nest that is overly complicated. The "oooo big business" part comes when you realize the only people who truly benefit from this complication are those with the means to exploit all those things, who happen to also be those who make a lot of the decisions, so there's not really a motivation to do anything about the problem.

I understand your frustration when someone suggests change but offers no solutions of their own, but just because you can't solve world hunger doesn't mean you can't recognize that it's an issue. I think they should fix the oil leak too, does that mean my opinion is invalid unless I have a solution? Lots of problems are complicated, but if enough people notice them and reasonably bring them to light, maybe someone WILL come up with a fix. Until then, is it your suggestion that we all just sit back and take it? No thanks.

ohskigod

hearingimpared wrote: »

If, in fact, a tax return is not required by the IRS, why file one?

I can be a little wrong on this, but I know that those statute of limitations that have been mentioned here don't mean squat without a filed return,

As far as I know, if you do not file a return, there is no time limit to the IRS auditing and taking action against you.

in terms of collection after you file a return showing you owe $, and they do not begin the collection process and have a judgement entered against you in either 7 to 10 years, there collection action efforts are limited (nothing solid saying they can not collect, but the really can't go after you by entering a judgement and siezing assets if not done in whatever that time period is)


someone mentioned a 3 year window for audits, I dont think that is the case, espescially if you willfully underreport. if you file a fraudulent return I'm pretty sure there is no statute of limitation for them to investigate it. maybe they're limited in what they can bust balls about after that time period? I really don't know, but knowingly undereporting and fraudulent returns are looked into WELL after 3 years.

tonyb

I think the frustration for most comes from a complicated tax code that gives many benefits to corporations making billions. While the average joe is getting taxed up the wazoo for everything. There has to be a balance of tax benefits for corporations,enough taxation without putting a stranglehold on growth. A solution ? Hell if I know, but it maybe time to try something different in the way of some sort of flat tax for everyone. Don't see it happening anytime soon though as the powers at be will never give up any once they have it.

JohnLocke88

hearingimpared wrote: »

If, in fact, a tax return is not required by the IRS, why file one?

Number of reasons, but primarily two. Gets the SOL ticking (which even with no tax liability, filing a "zero" return IS NEVER A BAD THING) and if for whatever reason, you need to negotiate with the IRS later (perhaps, filing an Offer-In-Compromise) compliance is necessary for six years (sometimes ten years).

hearingimpared wrote: »

I thought it was 7 years on the statute of limitations for the IRS collecting taxes but now I see it is 10, either way my example was to show how the IRS can take your money and keep it if not filed for the return within three years. The 20 years I stated was exagerated on purpose but the point still stands.

Well, in California, it is 20 years. So, it's not an exaggeration on that front.

bobman1235 wrote: »

Until then, is it your suggestion that we all just sit back and take it? No thanks.

Yah, I think you miss the point that a considerable amount of "complexity" revolves around your personal income taxes too. And not because the government likes making things intentionally difficult. It's that a series of social, economic and political decisions and values have been instilled in the IRC since its inception. Many of these have resulted, directly and indirectly, in great tax benefits to people that start small businesses, get married, raise children, work instead of going on welfare, put their kids through higher eduction, put themselves through higher education, etc. And once again, EVERYONE, not just "big business" benefits from the tax code AND its complexities.

And no, I don't suggest you sit back "and take it," but rather, make the current system work to your advantage. Mark my words, the current "progressive" tax system we have, aside from a few changes here and there, is not going anywhere anytime soon.

ohskigod wrote: »

I can be a little wrong on this, but I know that those statute of limitations that have been mentioned here don't mean squat without a filed return,

As far as I know, if you do not file a return, there is no time limit to the IRS auditing and taking action against you.

Bingo!

tonyb wrote: »

Hell if I know, but it maybe time to try something different in the way of some sort of flat tax for everyone. Don't see it happening anytime soon though as the powers at be will never give up any once they have it.

The concept of a flat tax is very appealing to many. The problem, from my view, is that a flat tax system cannot and will not result in a net tax reduction (call it "benefit") to everyone. Some will undoubtedly "benefit," but then, others, primarily the middle class, will not. Think of it metaphorically as abandoning a boat at sea you know floats, plods along at 5 knots and you're familiar with, to a speed boat with a nice new paint job that the previous owner may or may not have forgotten to put the drain plugs in.

I do agree though. The current system is far from the ideal. I hope no one is construing my thoughts as believing it is. If it appears that way, I sincerely apologize.

hearingimpared

hearingimpared wrote: »

If, in fact, a tax return is not required by the IRS, why file one?

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

Number of reasons, but primarily two. Gets the SOL ticking (which even with no tax liability, filing a "zero" return IS NEVER A BAD THING) and if for whatever reason, you need to negotiate with the IRS later (perhaps, filing an Offer-In-Compromise) compliance is necessary for six years (sometimes ten years).

John, I've read your reply here several times. It really doesn't answer my question. E.g. one is Social Security Disability for the rest of one's life. The yearly income from collecting disability falls below the $ number that the IRS states a return is required to be filed. One calls the IRS and states his yearly earnings, which in this case in only the disability earnings he receives from SSI, the IRS agent states and a return is not necessary. Why go through the effort or trouble whatever you want to call it, to file a return.

I don't understand your logic here. If it is not required how can not filing be a bad thing? Is there a statute of limitations in any way involved here? Why would one need to negotiate with the IRS latter on if the yearly income is and has been lower than what is required to file a return. I just don't get it.

JohnLocke88

hearingimpared wrote: »

John, I've read your reply here several times. It really doesn't answer my question. E.g. one is Social Security Disability for the rest of one's life. The yearly income from collecting disability falls below the $ number that the IRS states a return is required to be filed.

I was not aware of your life circumstances. You probably mentioned it earlier, and if so, I apologize. If you are indeed on fixed income, and reasonably foresee that staying the case for the indefinite future, you should be fine. For most people, this is not the case, and if your income levels, and sources, vary significantly from year to year, it becomes much more important to file.

But yes, if you are on disability, and that level falls belong the threshold for the most basic filing status (single, no dependent exemptions, only personal exemption), then you should be golden.

Sorry about the confusion.

nooshinjohn

I don't understand all this BS...

Abolish the IRS, end of problem.

bobman1235

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

Yah, I think you miss the point that a considerable amount of "complexity" revolves around your personal income taxes too. And not because the government likes making things intentionally difficult. It's that a series of social, economic and political decisions and values have been instilled in the IRC since its inception. Many of these have resulted, directly and indirectly, in great tax benefits to people that start small businesses, get married, raise children, work instead of going on welfare, put their kids through higher eduction, put themselves through higher education, etc. And once again, EVERYONE, not just "big business" benefits from the tax code AND its complexities.

And no, I don't suggest you sit back "and take it," but rather, make the current system work to your advantage. Mark my words, the current "progressive" tax system we have, aside from a few changes here and there, is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Well, thanks for the grade school explanation of how taxes are good and help the poor downtrodden. I'll be sure to note it in my book of fairy tales.

Whether it's going anywhere or not, I think anyone with half a brain can agree that 17,000 pages (taht's an actual number) of legaleze might be excessive. Might. Just a tad. Maybe you're confusing me with a radical who wants to abolish all tax incentives, rather than someone who just looks for a little more common sense and reason in his government.

hearingimpared

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

I was not aware of your life circumstances. You probably mentioned it earlier, and if so, I apologize. If you are indeed on fixed income, and reasonably foresee that staying the case for the indefinite future, you should be fine. For most people, this is not the case, and if your income levels, and sources, vary significantly from year to year, it becomes much more important to file.

But yes, if you are on disability, and that level falls belong the threshold for the most basic filing status (single, no dependent exemptions, only personal exemption), then you should be golden.

Sorry about the confusion.

No problem, but I gotta tell you, you were scaring the **** out of me.

I don't like even like the thought of having to deal with the IRS. Their power is even more destructive to one's life than Mafia loan sharks in my eyes.:eek:

hearingimpared

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I don't understand all this BS...

Abolish the IRS, end of problem.

LOL!!! If it were only that easy!;)

tonyb

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=a_zuKBlarm.A

Another interesting story on Ford and GM, and how they pretty much are investing more and more into Mexican plants...of coarse they pay those workers 26 bucks a day, so you can see the appeal. I'm just curious if all the talk recently of taxing these companies that move jobs out of the country apply to the auto industry.

Kex

tonyb wrote: »

... Another interesting story on Ford and GM, and how they pretty much are investing more and more into Mexican plants...

Interesting. I wonder why Volkswagen, which is already well established in Mexico and Brazil, is building a new plant in TN? Surely there must be good reasons for them to do so, and surely they expect to make more profit by doing so.

tonyb

TN probably made them an offer they couldn't refuse.:)

JohnLocke88

bobman1235 wrote: »

Well, thanks for the grade school explanation of how taxes are good and help the poor downtrodden. I'll be sure to note it in my book of fairy tales.

Whether it's going anywhere or not, I think anyone with half a brain can agree that 17,000 pages (taht's an actual number) of legaleze might be excessive. Might. Just a tad. Maybe you're confusing me with a radical who wants to abolish all tax incentives, rather than someone who just looks for a little more common sense and reason in his government.

Lol. I'll let everyone else find the amazing contradiction in these two paragraphs. When was the last time you used a road, sent your kids to public school, enjoyed not being shot at by one of your neighbors because there are no police around? If the idea that taxes are indeed good is a "fairy tale" to you, perhaps, we would be better off without them.

I guess I'll just continue along, happy in the knowledge that understanding the system we have is better than broken recording "make it simpler" without pointing out a single example of what to change. (If it truly is 17,000 pages of BS, there has to be at least ONE thing you can point to, no?)

mhmacw

hows this for something to point to! i make 5477 in a 109 hr week. i pay 2566 in taxes. if that aint f#%$ked i dont know what is! i work my balls off to do what?

JohnLocke88

mhmacw wrote: »

hows this for something to point to! i make 5477 in a 109 hr week. i pay 2566 in taxes. if that aint f#%$ked i dont know what is! i work my balls off to do what?

109 hours a week? Or is that monthly? If weekly, hats of to you, that's incredible.

Either way, that does seem quite high. I'd consider having another CPA / licensed tax preparer take a look at your numbers and consider filing an amended return. Are you self-employed, 1099 contractor or something of the sort?

tonyb

I think you guys are hitting both extremes of the problems with our tax codes. Nobody is saying to do away with ALL taxes. We need taxes to pay for essentials, but not countless entittlements, or B.S. programs. I just don't see why a company making 50,60,even 100 billion dollars should receive numerous tax benefits. Lower taxes are ment to stimulate growth but once that growth is realized and sustained, those tax benefits should go away. On the flipside, when you talk taxation,you also have to talk spending, which currently nobody in charge is willing to do.

bobman1235

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

Lol. I'll let everyone else find the amazing contradiction in these two paragraphs. When was the last time you used a road, sent your kids to public school, enjoyed not being shot at by one of your neighbors because there are no police around? If the idea that taxes are indeed good is a "fairy tale" to you, perhaps, we would be better off without them.

I guess I'll just continue along, happy in the knowledge that understanding the system we have is better than broken recording "make it simpler" without pointing out a single example of what to change. (If it truly is 17,000 pages of BS, there has to be at least ONE thing you can point to, no?)

Congratulations John, your clever debate tactic of "completely pigeonhole someone into what you think they're saying, and then condescend to them" is very effective and original. :rolleyes:

I said multiple times that I understand the use of taxes, and you ignored that because it didn't fit into your view of what you think I'm trying to say. Awesome reading comprehension.

I am NOT in any way talking about excessive taxation in these posts. I'm talking about the needless complication OF the tax laws. The fact that I cna't point to a single "change" is because I'm not talking about changing the laws, I'm talking about how accessible they are to the average AMerican.

Example. My father owns a small business. Very small, just him, making enough to get by, doing very simple cosmetic work on cars. If he went to five different tax lawyers every quarter, he would get five different answers on what he owed. At no point have I said that he shouldn't have to pay, or said that his tax money doesn't go to useful purpose, which is what you're trying to make it seem like I'm saying. I'm saying the law should be such that it was obvious what he could and couldn't deduct and how much he owed. I'm not saying this is an EASY task, but I don't think the folks who write tax law put ANY effort into it, and you COULD argue that they make it needlessly complicated for any variety of reasons (job security among them).

Maybe if you spent less time being a condescending jackass we could actually have a reasonable discussion? No? Fine. Enjoy the view from your high horse then.

tonyb

Very well spoken my man, but have a cup of joe,relax,kiss the wife. Personally,I was thinking the same thing stated in your post.

JohnLocke88

Screw it. Not worth the time.

polktiger

One clarification related to Ford...

I have not taken the time to find and read this case, so I don't know if this is exactly what happened, but...

The tax code is not black and white. A company the size of Ford is actually audited every year, and the IRS frequently has offices within the "Ford Complex." A distpute over the interpretation of the tax code can take years or even over a decade to resolve in the courts. What is likely to have happened...Ford took a position on their return that the IRS disagreed with. Ford likely felt like they had a decent chance of losing the dispute, so they preimtively paid the tax in order to avoid penalties and interest (the penalty caps out, but it alone could easily have been 25% of the actual potential tax liability, and the interest compounds until the tax is paid with no limit.) If you actually pay the tax, you also get to go to District Court or the Court of Claims instead of the Tax Court, so sometimes depending on the forum you desire you pay the tax and then sue for refund.

JohnLocke88

polktiger wrote: »

One clarification related to Ford...

I have not taken the time to find and read this case, so I don't know if this is exactly what happened, but...

The tax code is not black and white. A company the size of Ford is actually audited every year, and the IRS frequently has offices within the "Ford Complex." A distpute over the interpretation of the tax code can take years or even over a decade to resolve in the courts. What is likely to have happened...Ford took a position on their return that the IRS disagreed with. Ford likely felt like they had a decent chance of losing the dispute, so they preimtively paid the tax in order to avoid penalties and interest (the penalty caps out, but it alone could easily have been 25% of the actual potential tax liability, and the interest compounds until the tax is paid with no limit.) If you actually pay the tax, you also get to go to District Court or the Court of Claims instead of the Tax Court, so sometimes depending on the forum you desire you pay the tax and then sue for refund.

Interesting. What then would be the benefit of going from the DC or CoC instead of the Tax Court?

nooshinjohn

12% flat tax on all income above 25k/year and 20% flat on all corporate profits above 250k/year. These rates would automatically adjust for inflation anually. The Fed would need a supermajority of 65% yes or better to raise the rate unless there is a formal declaration of war. No more write-offs, deductions, credits or anything else. No more IRS and problem solved.:)

JohnLocke88

nooshinjohn wrote: »

12% flat tax on all income above 25k/year and 20% flat on all corporate profits above 250k/year. These rates would automatically adjust for inflation anually. The Fed would need a supermajority of 65% yes or better to raise the rate unless there is a formal declaration of war. No more write-offs, deductions, credits or anything else. No more IRS and problem solved.:)

Sounds like a plan.

Nice audio rack btw, I was looking through the system showcase and saw yours.

polktiger

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

Interesting. What then would be the benefit of going from the DC or CoC instead of the Tax Court?

Tax Court has no jury, the judge rules. Which can be good and bad. Also the different courts follow different prescedent. Tax Court is 1 essentially 1 circuit for the whole country so a Tax Court in California has to follow prescedent set by a Tax Court in Georgia. District Ct is your normal geographical district/circuit ct of appeals, so a case in the 4th Circuit, can have a different interpretation than and different prescedent than a case in the 6th Circuit. So yes folks, it is possible for a taxpayer in California to have a different "tax law" than someone in North Carolina due to differences of opinion in their respective courts. Eventually the Supreme Ct usually rules on a case where the circuits are of differing opinions, but it takes a long time.
Ct of Claims is its own Ct system and has its own appeals path that is separate from the typical circuit ct of appeals.

Actually, another benefit of bypassing the tax court is that you are bringing a refund suit. I am not 100% certain, but I think if you paid the tax, you are prohibited from using the Tax Court. So if you go the Tax Court route, you are racking up penalties and interest the whole time until the case is decided.

mhmacw

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

109 hours a week? Or is that monthly? If weekly, hats of to you, that's incredible.

Either way, that does seem quite high. I'd consider having another CPA / licensed tax preparer take a look at your numbers and consider filing an amended return. Are you self-employed, 1099 contractor or something of the sort?

nope nothing out of the ordinay, just claiming zero. i guess i should have said pay period as it is a calendar week and is actually 7 days pay. god only knows what the govn. would want if i were to go the 1099 route. its the overtime that gets sams attention. when you try harder they reach deeper. i once knew a situation where a fellow employee would work 36 hrs (when the overtime was cut back) and actually make 7 dollars more (or something like that) than if he had a 40 hr week. the calculation schedules are whacked! yea we need to pay taxes but "we" means everybody not just the little guys. as stated earlier...if you cant afford to hire tax attorneys to find the loopholes for you you get screwed. my fellow workers were just as bad off as i am but they are canadian and said they are used to 45 to 50 % on payroll taxes. we joked that the accountants must have calculated mine with the canuks due to the size of the checks haha.

Ron-P

It's not just FORD, it's all of us, getting the shaft.