Question:

Hey Beav. I just looked at the photos; didn’t occur to me before. How come the most beautiful women are always attracted to the ugliest guys? I’m lucky – I’m ugly too

There’s no accounting for taste.

Response:

All you had to do was ask Beav! Go back to wankerville you cunt, Jay Stevens. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Advisory Kevin Maxfield aka "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions. He has published his contact information as follows: Kevin "Beavis" Maxfield 106 Churchill Drive Little Lever Bolton BL3 1PG UK Picture: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kevin.maxfield/pictures/me.jpg Also, a picture of Britt, with the caption: "When she ain’t cookin my meals she does find time to fly a heli!" http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kevin.maxfield/pictures/britt.JPG Forwarded message: [ [ Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes [ NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.122.164.63 [ [ Greetings news group participants, [ [ I am sending this news to all newsgroups that the person [ especially that involves medical advice. You need to be [ concerned taking any medical advice from him whatsoever. [ Why? [ [ Over the years this person has flamed me and others, told [ lies and did harm all in the name of fun. This person [ could just as easily give you improper medical advice and [ sit back and laugh for the fun of it. Beware of him, he [ may act nice and helpful but there is an evil side. [ [ Just to help prove what I'm saying, I have given evidence [ below of just one lie he was caught making. I'm posting [ this so that from now on you can measure anything he has [ to say with what his words are actually worth. Beav is a [ liar. I have proven without a shadow of dough that Beav [ is a liar. Sure, it is a small lie this time, but what [ about all the ones before, or after? [ [ On 02/04/2003, you posted on the rec.aviation.rotorcraft news group: [ He's also over on the R/C heli group looking for ideas [ on how to build a big RC machine which he SAYS is [ destined for military (unmanned) use. [ [ That was an out in out lie. I never said such a thing. He [ made it up and lied to everyone there. [ [ What I said is below: [ [ On 01/30/2003, I posted on rec.models.rc.helicopter: [ Hello, [ [ We have lot's of experience building full size [ helicopters, but little knowledge in the RC field and [ what's available. [ [ I have been contracted to provide a customer with two [ large (400 pounds empty) prototype helicopters to be [ flown by remote control. It is a CCPM controlled [ configuration. I need to find servo's that are large [ enough to handle at least a 5 pound resistance per [ arm, with a 3" travel. [ [ The control rods go through the center of the drive [ shaft and connect to the control gimble below the [ transmission, where 3 arms are located for both cyclic [ and collective inputs for the CCPM configuration. The [ best solution would be 3 linear servo's, if something [ preexists. [ [ Rather than reinvent the wheel, I hope someone would [ be kind enough to provide me information on where to [ find servo's large enough to do the job, or if a [ linear servo can be used. The response time of these [ large helicopters are much less than that of an RC [ model. [ [ Also, if someone of high experience in RC helicopters [ is interested in providing some help with the flights, [ we're located in the California LA area. [ [ Sincerely, [ [ Dennis [ [  No where in this or any post did I say "it is destined [  for military (unmanned) use". Beav lied about that. [ [  I know some of you here will say, well, it was just a [  little lie. Well, any lie is a lie, big or small, and [  Beav lied and has done much worse. He told this lie to [  hurt and do as much damage as he could, and it's time for [  all who deal with him to know. He has proven his [  willingness to lie and harm people just for fun, so [  anything he says could be a lie or to cause more damage [  for his entertainment. [ [  Beav is a liar. Beware of advice he gives you! [ Arcchived at: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3E4BECF9.80308%40sbcglobal.net&oe=U... End of advisory Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti

Response:

Advisory Picture: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kevin.maxfield/pictures/me.jpg Also, a picture of Britt, with the caption: "When she ain't cookin my meals she does find time to fly a heli!" http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kevin.maxfield/pictures/britt.JPG hey Beav not to make lite of what Drl Jai dont but you look like a pretty cool guy, dressed in your sunday best no doubt

Must've posted a picture I've got nothing to do with Tom, although I have to say, I AM a cool guy:-)) Getting ready for a Beavis and Butthead convention?

Not anymore. Not since they took B & B off MTV:-( Hey Tom, wanna see what I've done to my bike? Beav

Response:

hey beav.. If you really are as big of wormshit as the fake dr. says you are DAMN I'm PROUD TO KNOW YOU!

I think I'm even bigger than that, and I accept your pride with pride:-) Beav

Response:

Hey Beav.

I just looked at the photos; didn't occur to me before. How come the most beautiful women are always attracted to the ugliest guys? I'm lucky - I'm ugly too Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. -- Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Response:

Just call me 'Dr. Boris' and mail me a lot of money.

were supposed - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - to act in a professional manner?

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Kev,  the day *anything* publicised on the internet becomes embarrassing is the day to give it all up I reckon. Well it'll take more than some knob posting my name and address to embarrass me;) what about your wife in the nude?

That wouldn't embarrass me half as much as seeing a pic of ME in the nude:-) My missus is a babe y'know. Beav

Response:

Advisory Picture: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kevin.maxfield/pictures/me.jpg Also, a picture of Britt, with the caption: "When she ain't cookin my meals she does find time to fly a heli!" http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kevin.maxfield/pictures/britt.JPG

hey Beav not to make lite of what Drl Jai dont but you look like a pretty cool guy, dressed in your sunday best no doubt Getting ready for a Beavis and Butthead convention?

Response:

Kev,  the day *anything* publicised on the internet becomes embarrassing is the day to give it all up I reckon.

Well it'll take more than some knob posting my name and address to embarrass me;) -- Beav Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com" (with the obvious changes) Beavisland now lives at www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

Response:

hey beav.. If you really are as big of wormshit as the fake dr. says you are DAMN I'm PROUD TO KNOW YOU! j00 R0X! -- RK - t1 *Disclaimer: i'm not a doctor. I only share personal experience of being a diabetic. I have no textbook learning, only life itself. In tribute to the United States of America and the State of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and terrorism. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Advisory Kevin Maxfield aka "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions. He has published his contact information as follows: Kevin "Beavis" Maxfield 106 Churchill Drive Little Lever Bolton BL3 1PG UK Picture: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kevin.maxfield/pictures/me.jpg Also, a picture of Britt, with the caption: "When she ain't cookin my meals she does find time to fly a heli!" http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kevin.maxfield/pictures/britt.JPG Forwarded message: [ [ Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes [ NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.122.164.63 [ [ Greetings news group participants, [ [ I am sending this news to all newsgroups that the person [ especially that involves medical advice. You need to be [ concerned taking any medical advice from him whatsoever. [ Why? [ [ Over the years this person has flamed me and others, told [ lies and did harm all in the name of fun. This person [ could just as easily give you improper medical advice and [ sit back and laugh for the fun of it. Beware of him, he [ may act nice and helpful but there is an evil side. [ [ Just to help prove what I'm saying, I have given evidence [ below of just one lie he was caught making. I'm posting [ this so that from now on you can measure anything he has [ to say with what his words are actually worth. Beav is a [ liar. I have proven without a shadow of dough that Beav [ is a liar. Sure, it is a small lie this time, but what [ about all the ones before, or after? [ [ On 02/04/2003, you posted on the rec.aviation.rotorcraft news group: [ He's also over on the R/C heli group looking for ideas [ on how to build a big RC machine which he SAYS is [ destined for military (unmanned) use. [ [ That was an out in out lie. I never said such a thing. He [ made it up and lied to everyone there. [ [ What I said is below: [ [ On 01/30/2003, I posted on rec.models.rc.helicopter: [ Hello, [ [ We have lot's of experience building full size [ helicopters, but little knowledge in the RC field and [ what's available. [ [ I have been contracted to provide a customer with two [ large (400 pounds empty) prototype helicopters to be [ flown by remote control. It is a CCPM controlled [ configuration. I need to find servo's that are large [ enough to handle at least a 5 pound resistance per [ arm, with a 3" travel. [ [ The control rods go through the center of the drive [ shaft and connect to the control gimble below the [ transmission, where 3 arms are located for both cyclic [ and collective inputs for the CCPM configuration. The [ best solution would be 3 linear servo's, if something [ preexists. [ [ Rather than reinvent the wheel, I hope someone would [ be kind enough to provide me information on where to [ find servo's large enough to do the job, or if a [ linear servo can be used. The response time of these [ large helicopters are much less than that of an RC [ model. [ [ Also, if someone of high experience in RC helicopters [ is interested in providing some help with the flights, [ we're located in the California LA area. [ [ Sincerely, [ [ Dennis [ [  No where in this or any post did I say "it is destined [  for military (unmanned) use". Beav lied about that. [ [  I know some of you here will say, well, it was just a [  little lie. Well, any lie is a lie, big or small, and [  Beav lied and has done much worse. He told this lie to [  hurt and do as much damage as he could, and it's time for [  all who deal with him to know. He has proven his [  willingness to lie and harm people just for fun, so [  anything he says could be a lie or to cause more damage [  for his entertainment. [ [  Beav is a liar. Beware of advice he gives you! [ Arcchived at:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3E4BECF9.80308%40sbcglobal.net&oe=U... - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - End of advisory Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Advisory ... "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes ..... Oh, the arrogant so and so.  Fancy boasting about being a patient of "Diabetes", whoever that might be.  ;-) has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions. Funny, must have been long before my time on misc.health.diabetes.  I've never seen this.  He's given a lot of very useful tips there, however. He has published his contact information as follows: [ .... ] Is that true, Beav?

What, the info or the "fact" that I published it?:-) the info’s correct (but it’s no secret) but I can’t recal publishing it anywhere. I might even have a case against Stevens if the Data Protection Act has any teeth. (Can’t be arsed though)   Many, many moons ago, each morning at around 8:30 (OK, sometimes it was nearer 9:00 , I used to walk out of the bus station, past the Old Mill by the Stream, over the Croal, up through the park, and into a ten mile long red sandstone school building on Chorley New Road.

Bolton grammar?   A very fine school it was, too. I suspect I’m right then;-) The town had a lot going for it.  Probably still does.

It does, *I* live theer:-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Forwarded message: [ Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes [ NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.122.164.63 [ .... ] [ Beware of him, he may act nice and helpful but there is an evil [ side. Well, what a relief to hear that!  What sort of person, other than a useless ineffectual blancmange, doesn't have an evil side?

I thought he was being nasty 'til I saw the last two words:) [ Just to help prove what I'm saying, I have given evidence [ below of just one lie he was caught making. I'm posting [ this so that from now on you can measure anything he has [ to say with what his words are actually worth. Beav is a [ liar. I have proven without a shadow of dough that Beav [ is a liar. Sure, it is a small lie this time, but what [ about all the ones before, or after? Oh God, not this puerile rhetorical trick again. <yawn.  Anything which isn't 100% true is construed as a "lie", no matter in what context, whether deliberate or mistaken, whatever, and anybody who tells such a tiny "lie" obviously tells big nasty dangerous ones.

He's been reading too many Fetters posts. That's a bloke who's responsible for selling machines which have killed more people than they've pleasured. [ On 02/04/2003, you posted on the rec.aviation.rotorcraft news group: [ He's also over on the R/C heli group looking for ideas [ on how to build a big RC machine which he SAYS is [ destined for military (unmanned) use. Ah, right, here we are again.  The helicopter thing.  The guy who didn't like people saying his helicopters tended to crash, wasn't it?

That's the one. [ On 01/30/2003, I posted on rec.models.rc.helicopter: Beav, was the said Mr. Fetters the person behind the unstable helicopters?

He was behind a very DANGEROUS piece of shit. Jai Maharaj Hmmm.  Wonder what the relationship between Dennis Fetters and "Dr. Jai Mahraj" is.

One's probably chomping on the other. Take your pick which is which-) As far as I'm concerned, the world would be a better place if neither of them were here. Beav

Response:

WE LOVE BEAV! WE LOVE BEAV! WE LOVE BEAV! -- Cheri Type 2, no meds for now. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Advisory Kevin Maxfield aka "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions. He has published his contact information as follows:

Response:

I exercise my option to not read posts by this individual.  They have been around for a long time.  I do read Beav a lot. Better shut up while I am ahead.  My thoughts are not nice.                                             Guy

Response:

LOL! What a sad git. D

Response:

Kev,  the day *anything* publicised on the internet becomes embarrassing is the day to give it all up I reckon. David

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Advisory Do some more research Stevens. Who knows, you MAY even come up with something new and interesting. And maybe even something that would actually bother, upset ot embarrass me. -- Beav Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com" (with the obvious changes) Beavisland now lives at www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

Response:

Advisory ... "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes .....

Oh, the arrogant so and so.  Fancy boasting about being a patient of "Diabetes", whoever that might be.  ;-) has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions.

Funny, must have been long before my time on misc.health.diabetes.  I've never seen this.  He's given a lot of very useful tips there, however. He has published his contact information as follows:

[ .... ] Is that true, Beav?  Many, many moons ago, each morning at around 8:30 (OK, sometimes it was nearer 9:00 , I used to walk out of the bus station, past the Old Mill by the Stream, over the Croal, up through the park, and into a ten mile long red sandstone school building on Chorley New Road.  A very fine school it was, too.  The town had a lot going for it.  Probably still does. Forwarded message: [ Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes [ NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.122.164.63

[ .... ] [ Beware of him, he may act nice and helpful but there is an evil [ side.

Well, what a relief to hear that!  What sort of person, other than a useless ineffectual blancmange, doesn’t have an evil side? [ Just to help prove what I’m saying, I have given evidence [ below of just one lie he was caught making. I’m posting [ this so that from now on you can measure anything he has [ to say with what his words are actually worth. Beav is a [ liar. I have proven without a shadow of dough that Beav [ is a liar. Sure, it is a small lie this time, but what [ about all the ones before, or after?

Oh God, not this puerile rhetorical trick again. <yawn.  Anything which isn’t 100% true is construed as a "lie", no matter in what context, whether deliberate or mistaken, whatever, and anybody who tells such a tiny "lie" obviously tells big nasty dangerous ones.   [ On 02/04/2003, you posted on the rec.aviation.rotorcraft news group: [ He’s also over on the R/C heli group looking for ideas [ on how to build a big RC machine which he SAYS is [ destined for military (unmanned) use.

Ah, right, here we are again.  The helicopter thing.  The guy who didn’t like people saying his helicopters tended to crash, wasn’t it? [ On 01/30/2003, I posted on rec.models.rc.helicopter:

Beav, was the said Mr. Fetters the person behind the unstable helicopters? Jai Maharaj

Hmmm.  Wonder what the relationship between Dennis Fetters and "Dr. Jai Mahraj" is. — Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Response:

Advisory

Do some more research Stevens. Who knows, you MAY even come up with something new and interesting. And maybe even something that would actually bother, upset ot embarrass me. — Beav Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com" (with the obvious changes) Beavisland now lives at www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

Response:

Great bloke is our Beav. I thought "doctors" were supposed to act in a professional manner?

You’re right, but of course Jai is not a medical doctor. Unfortunately, you’re not even right about some that are Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. — Everything in Moderation – Except Laughter.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kevin Maxfield aka "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions. He has published his contact information as follows: Hey Beav. When I took over as Ops manager at the cab company, they told me I wouldn’t have "arrived" until I saw my name, together with various impossible anatomical suggestions, on the walls of the toilet. Took two months. This seems to be the usenet equivalent.

Stevens (aka Dr Jai) is just a spaz who sits in front of a computer screen trying to illuminate the world. Fortunately for the world, they’re wise to him so he just gets told to fuck off wherever he goes. I’m just this weeks target, but he missed, coz he doesn’t know a thing about me apart from my name and addy which ANYONE can have at any time. It must’ve taken his MONTHS to do a "who is" on my website:-)) What on earth did you do to upset the troll? Will I be next for daring to comment??  :-)

)) Well our delectable Dr Jai (who isn’t a doctor btw) doesn’t seem to like it when he gets told to fuck off for spamming. He also seems to think I’d be pissed off with him posting his message. He’s got a lot to learn though hasn’t he? ) — Beav Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com" (with the obvious changes) Beavisland now lives at www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

Response:

You know in this life you come across some prats, but then once in every while you come across a fucking great prat aka this Dr! I fly helis and in the past Beav has helped me a lot. I’m also diabetic and in the past Beav has helped me a lot. What Mr Dr prat have you EVER done (of good) for anybody??????? Phil Martin. BTW, I’m sure you’ve missed a few other groups that Beav post to. If I were you I’d sit down and start trolling through the other 50,000 odd ng’s to hunt him down:o) — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Advisory Kevin Maxfield aka "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions. He has published his contact information as follows: Great bloke is our Beav. I thought "doctors" were supposed to act in a professional manner? Ah, but Jay Stevens, aka Dr. Jai, isn’t a Dr.  He’s just a troll.

Stevens is probably mentally ill, if not, just a bare-arsed liar. In either case he has no moral or legal right to post Beav’s details. Repeat, Stevens is a liar, not a Dr, not Maharaj. Even the thread header is a lie, Beav has never claimed to be medically qualified. Al.

Response:

Advisory Kevin Maxfield aka "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions. He has published his contact information as follows: Great bloke is our Beav. I thought "doctors" were supposed to act in a professional manner?

Ah, but Jay Stevens, aka Dr. Jai, isn’t a Dr.  He’s just a troll. — Type 2 http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/

Response:

Advisory Kevin Maxfield aka "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions. He has published his contact information as follows:

Great bloke is our Beav. I thought "doctors" were supposed to act in a professional manner?

Response:

Kevin Maxfield aka "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions. He has published his contact information as follows:

Hey Beav. When I took over as Ops manager at the cab company, they told me I wouldn’t have "arrived" until I saw my name, together with various impossible anatomical suggestions, on the walls of the toilet. Took two months. This seems to be the usenet equivalent. What on earth did you do to upset the troll? Will I be next for daring to comment??  :-) Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. — Everything in Moderation – Except Laughter.

Response:

Advisory Kevin Maxfield aka "Beavis" aka "Beav" who is a self-publicized patient of diabetes has committed serious crimes by dispensing medical advice to other patients on numerous occasions. He has published his contact information as follows: Kevin "Beavis" Maxfield 106 Churchill Drive Little Lever Bolton BL3 1PG UK Picture: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kevin.maxfield/pictures/me.jpg Also, a picture of Britt, with the caption: "When she ain’t cookin my meals she does find time to fly a heli!" http://homepage.ntlworld.com/kevin.maxfield/pictures/britt.JPG Forwarded message: [ [ Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes [ NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.122.164.63 [ [ Greetings news group participants, [ [ I am sending this news to all newsgroups that the person [ especially that involves medical advice. You need to be [ concerned taking any medical advice from him whatsoever. [ Why? [ [ Over the years this person has flamed me and others, told [ lies and did harm all in the name of fun. This person [ could just as easily give you improper medical advice and [ sit back and laugh for the fun of it. Beware of him, he [ may act nice and helpful but there is an evil side. [ [ Just to help prove what I’m saying, I have given evidence [ below of just one lie he was caught making. I’m posting [ this so that from now on you can measure anything he has [ to say with what his words are actually worth. Beav is a [ liar. I have proven without a shadow of dough that Beav [ is a liar. Sure, it is a small lie this time, but what [ about all the ones before, or after? [ [ On 02/04/2003, you posted on the rec.aviation.rotorcraft news group:

[ He's also over on the R/C heli group looking for ideas [ on how to build a big RC machine which he SAYS is [ destined for military (unmanned) use. [   [ That was an out in out lie. I never said such a thing. He [ made it up and lied to everyone there. [ [ What I said is below: [ [ On 01/30/2003, I posted on rec.models.rc.helicopter: [ Hello, [ [ We have lot's of experience building full size [ helicopters, but little knowledge in the RC field and [ what's available. [ [ I have been contracted to provide a customer with two [ large (400 pounds empty) prototype helicopters to be [ flown by remote control. It is a CCPM controlled [ configuration. I need to find servo's that are large [ enough to handle at least a 5 pound resistance per [ arm, with a 3" travel. [ [ The control rods go through the center of the drive [ shaft and connect to the control gimble below the [ transmission, where 3 arms are located for both cyclic [ and collective inputs for the CCPM configuration. The [ best solution would be 3 linear servo's, if something [ preexists. [ [ Rather than reinvent the wheel, I hope someone would [ be kind enough to provide me information on where to [ find servo's large enough to do the job, or if a [ linear servo can be used. The response time of these [ large helicopters are much less than that of an RC [ model. [ [ Also, if someone of high experience in RC helicopters [ is interested in providing some help with the flights, [ we're located in the California LA area. [ [ Sincerely, [ [ Dennis [   [  No where in this or any post did I say "it is destined [  for military (unmanned) use". Beav lied about that. [   [  I know some of you here will say, well, it was just a [  little lie. Well, any lie is a lie, big or small, and [  Beav lied and has done much worse. He told this lie to [  hurt and do as much damage as he could, and it's time for [  all who deal with him to know. He has proven his [  willingness to lie and harm people just for fun, so [  anything he says could be a lie or to cause more damage [  for his entertainment. [   [  Beav is a liar. Beware of advice he gives you! [   Arcchived at: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3E4BECF9.80308%40sbcglobal.net&oe=U... End of advisory Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti

Response:

Question:

Anyone know how to file 1099 forms now?  I went to fill download and fill them out at the irs website and it said something about you can’t just print them out on the computer like you could in past years.  So how do I file one?

Response:

Anyone know how to file 1099 forms now?  I went to fill download and fill them out at the irs website and it said something about you can’t just print them out on the computer like you could in past years.

They didn’t let you do it last year, either. So how do I file one?

1099s were due by January 31. You may have to check to see what you have to do to file them late. IRS offices have copies of the 1099 and associated forms, but you might have to ask for them specially since you are late in filing.

Response:

Anyone know how to file 1099 forms now?  I went to fill download and fill them out at the irs website and it said something about you can’t just print them out on the computer like you could in past years.  So how do I file one?

You could not just print them out on a computer in the past either. Special red ink forms are needed. Go to your local office supply store and purchase a package of the 1099 forms you require. Fill them out and mail.

Response:

So how come i was able to do it two years ago?  At that time I generated them in turbo tax.  Didn’t need to file them last year which is why need to find out why I can’t file them this year.

Response:

Anyone know how to file 1099 forms now?  I went to fill download and fill them out at the irs website and it said something about you can’t just print them out on the computer like you could in past years.  So how do I file one?

On Monday, pick up the phone and call IRS at 1 800 829-3676 and ask for them to send you Form 1099 and Form 1096.  You should have them within 7 to 10 days. Wayne Brasch, CPA, M. S. Taxation

Response:

Just because you were physically able to send the IRS a form that you printed directly from Turbo Tax two years ago does not mean that it was proper to do so. You probably sent them the recipient copy.  IRS has for many years required the use of a special form that can’t be generated from computer software. You either get it from the IRS or purchase it from a forms vendor.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So how come i was able to do it two years ago?  At that time I generated them in turbo tax.  Didn’t need to file them last year which is why need to find out why I can’t file them this year.

Response:

Question:

The FBI’s Least Wanted The high cost of living is driving agents from some of the largest, most important cities. A few who stayed have gone on food stamps. By Greg Krikorian Times Staff Writer July 23, 2003 Five years ago, Bob Hoelscher stepped up to a microphone at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va., and, in a time-honored graduation ritual, opened an envelope with a slip of paper that identified his first assignment. San Francisco, it read. An attorney with a wife and infant son, Hoelscher had heard stories about the cost of living in the Bay Area. "But how bad can it be?" he thought. After driving cross-country, he found out. With a starting salary of $50,000, Hoelscher, then 33, was priced out of housing anywhere near his new job. After months of searching, he found a $250,000 house in Fairfield – 58 miles from San Francisco. His commute takes 75 minutes each way, if the weather is good. "I actually live in the Sacramento division," Hoelscher said. "There are tons of us who do the same thing each day." While the FBI plays a lead role in the war on terrorism, many agents say they are waging a private battle against financial hardship. An outdated pay structure has left many agents struggling to make ends meet, especially in high-cost cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. Some agents endure lengthy commutes. Others have gone deep into debt. A few have gone on food stamps or moved into government housing. FBI veterans say the impact on the bureau’s crime-fighting prowess is subtle, but unmistakable. Scores of younger agents are resigning for better-paying jobs in the private sector. Experienced agents want out of big cities. Top-level vacancies in specialties ranging from white-collar crime to counterterrorism go begging for applicants. The financial squeeze, agents say, is greatest in the very urban centers where the need for top investigative talent is most urgent. "It is the elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about," said Nancy Savage, a Portland, Ore., agent who is president of the FBI Agents Assn. "It is killing us in terms of getting people to want to work and stay in these high-cost cities. And these are critical places for us to work." A House subcommittee will hold a hearing today on legislation to boost salaries for thousands of federal law enforcement personnel working in the nation’s most expensive cities for the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other agencies. "It’s a major issue, not only in terms of quality of life and morale for the agents, but in terms of recruiting and keeping the most competent agents in these big cities," said former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh. In San Francisco, which has the nation’s highest housing prices, FBI officials estimate that 9% of the agents resign each year, compared with 2% for the bureau as a whole. A recent study found that of 313 agents hired in San Francisco from 1995 through 2002, 41% transferred to other cities. A decade ago, there were 17 applicants for a coveted assignment as an assistant special-agent-in-charge in the FBI’s San Francisco division, recalled Mark Mershon, who won that competition and now runs the office. It was a different story this year when two jobs at the same rank became vacant in San Francisco. Because of FBI rules on promotions, most applicants for such positions are bureau veterans from other parts of the country. The cost of living in the Bay Area frightened them off. "I had no takers. Zero," said Mershon, a 28-year FBI veteran. "Nobody raised their hands." Mershon eventually filled the jobs with two top candidates from out of state, but only after FBI headquarters bent the rules and offered each of the appointees a relocation bonus equal to 15% of their base salaries. "It’s shocking," said Dave Miller, head of the FBI’s counterterrorism program in San Francisco. "If the American dream is to own a home with a small backyard, it’s ironic that many FBI agents who are sworn to defend and protect this country have trouble buying into that dream." That trouble is greatest in places such as Los Angeles, where a new FBI agent earns a base salary of $39,204. A "locality" adjustment for living costs, coupled with 10 hours per week of mandatory overtime, bring the salary up to $56,843. With the median home price in Los Angeles County at $313,000, the average new agent is priced out of the local market and must spend three hours a day commuting to and from work, according to the FBI Agents Assn. Over time, agents become more comfortable financially. In Los Angeles, they can earn $84,000 after five years. The struggle is in the early years, and it is especially acute in the FBI because most new agents are on their second careers, and they have or are starting families. Reality Check In Portland, one new agent was stunned to learn two years ago that he and his family qualified for food stamps. "We moved from Ohio and were having to go to our credit card for food and gas and everyday expenses where you don’t normally use a credit card," said the agent, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. "Out of curiosity," he said, his wife contacted the state of Oregon and learned that his FBI salary of $50,000, coupled with his previous salary in Ohio, which was lower, made the family of five eligible for food stamps. "It was a reality check," the agent said. After six months of government assistance, state officials reevaluated the family’s eligibility. A full year’s FBI salary put them above the limit, the agent said – by about $2,000. Another FBI agent took a 20% pay cut when he left the engineering profession to join the bureau in April 2000. He was assigned to San Jose. The agent and his wife, who had an infant daughter, no debt and $5,000 in savings, found that apartments in safe neighborhoods went for a minimum of $1,500 a month. Taking home $2,900 a month, he said, he went through the family’s savings his first year on the job. "I was determined that I wasn’t going to go into debt," said the agent, who is 32. "We weren’t doing anything. We didn’t go out to eat. We didn’t go to movies. We were only surviving because of the savings." He was about to give up and resign. Then he and seven other agents won a lottery for apartments at Moffett Federal Airfield, a former Naval air base in Mountain View. The family moved in just before the birth of their second daughter – on Sept. 11, 2001. They viewed the two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment as a stopgap, but they are still there. "We can’t stay. It’s not big enough," the agent said. "But we still can’t buy a house." In the late 1980s, the high cost of living in New York City caused a staffing crisis in that FBI division. Though it employed about 10% of the FBI’s agents, the office was widely seen as the worst FBI assignment in the country because of living costs. "They were losing several agents a week," recalled Savage, of the FBI Agents Assn. "It was just insane." To stem the resignations, the FBI raised salaries and provided $20,000 bonuses for New York agents, she said. The bureau also adopted a "locality pay" formula to provide adjustments to the pay scale, depending on where in the country agents were assigned. The formula has not been revised since then. Agents complain that it does not reflect the cost of living in a dozen particularly expensive cities. Pay adjustments are based solely on the wage level in a particular city or region. Agents complain that they do not take into account housing prices, transportation costs and other financial factors. The system has bizarre consequences, agents say. FBI personnel in Houston, for example, are the envy of their colleagues because private sector salaries are high, the state has no income tax and housing is affordable. "They are middle-class in those places," said Hoelscher, the San Francisco agent, "while we’re struggling to get by." Some leave the bureau rather than struggle, and they include agents with valuable skills. In the last three years, the FBI has lost at least 14 agents and supervisors in five cities who investigated computer crimes, said Ken McGuire, a supervisory agent in Los Angeles who works in that specialty. "That is not a hard number," McGuire said. "That is just the ones I know about." Three years ago, a San Francisco agent poured out his frustrations in a letter to Freeh, then FBI director. An ex-Marine, the agent said that in his tours of military duty and his assignments with the FBI, he had "willingly accepted sacrifice as a way of life." "These sacrifices were made in the pursuit of a higher calling," he wrote. "However, we should not have to sacrifice the security and needs of ourselves and our families." The agent, who asked not to be identified because he works undercover, later left the FBI for another federal agency that allowed him to relocate and earn a higher salary. Long Commutes For many new agents, affordable housing comes with a commute that can add two, three, even four hours to the required minimum 10-hour workday. In New York City, many agents travel from as far Allentown, Pa., 90 miles away. In Los Angeles, they drive to the FBI office in Westwood from as far away as Lancaster and Riverside. Beyond keeping agents on the road for hours, financial pressures limit career options and make it harder for FBI management to fill important jobs. "People are more hesitant today to raise their hands and go to the high-cost areas," said Frank Scafidi, a veteran supervisor in Sacramento. "We have people here who could run major cases in other cities But they have elected to stay in an environment that is more beneficial for their families." The FBI cannot afford the flight of talent from its big-city offices, said retired Los Angeles agent Larry Langberg. "That is where the best work and the biggest threats are," said Langberg, who headed the FBI Agents Assn. for seven of his 30 years with the bureau.

… read more »

Response:

LOS ANGELES Study Says Welfare-to-Work Reforms Leave Recipients Below Poverty Line Findings criticize L.A. County’s emphasis on fast employment rather than training. Welfare officials dispute report. By Carla Rivera Times Staff Writer July 23, 2003 Despite all the efforts of welfare-to-work reforms, 78% of current and former welfare recipients who enter the labor force in Los Angeles County still earn incomes below the poverty threshold and many may never become self-sufficient because of disabilities and social dysfunctions, a new study concludes. Researchers reviewed cases of more than 220,000 parents involved in Los Angeles County’s welfare-to-work program since 1998, the year that federal welfare legislation with mandatory work requirements and a five-year time limit on aid took effect. The study found that their average income in 2001 was $5,770. Only 53% had earnings during the year and just 42% were working on average at any given time. The earnings do not include welfare checks that may boost their current incomes slightly above the federal poverty line, which in 2001 was $14,269 for a family of three. The study also found that the estimated 41,000 recipients who are expected to exhaust their lifetime limit of welfare in the next two years had average annual earnings of $5,391 and faced "bleak" prospects. The findings are included in a report titled "Prisoners of Hope, Welfare to Work in Los Angeles," released today by the Economic Roundtable, a nonprofit research group commissioned by the county Board of Supervisors two years ago to recommend ways of increasing the number of welfare recipients who find and keep jobs. The authors contend that Los Angeles County’s emphasis on immediate employment rather than education and training has not served those in welfare-to-work programs. That judgment, however, is disputed by county officials and another research group, the Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. The report’s co-author, Dan Flaming, said researchers examined "a huge amount of information about people who have gone through the work-first model." County officials have an obligation to "learn from their outcomes and improve the quality of what we accomplish. We have to help these parents attain higher incomes," he added. In California, most work-to-welfare participants with low wages can still collect a portion of their welfare check, if gross income does not exceed the maximum monthly grant, which last year was about $850 for a family of three and about $1,000 for a family of four. Children in the state may keep their portion of welfare grants beyond the five-year adult time limit as long as the family meets income requirements. Among the major findings about L.A. County in the report:

Question:

Really? Thought that I owned you the ‘courtesy’ as a response – no others are reading your mail..

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The following equation illustrates the way to know cost of goods sold in the double entry system Sales-(beginning stock with cost+purchases-ending stock with cost=cost of goods sold). In this case we get cost of goods sold as a total of all the organization’s units and it is represented in a form of arithmetic complement not in a form of figures.This complement could be exposed to errors and variances in any particular of the previous equation, besides how could we add purchasing of variable units to selling of other variable units and say that profit is a certain amount.In this case drawing a comparison to know gross profit is not correct from the arithmetical and logical aspects as how come we purchase apples and sell oranges then say we realized profit from purchasing apples and selling oranges.This is not logical as profit represents the contribution of each particular of the particulars of the organization’s assets.Gross profit must be taken from each commodity that the organization deals with,as the main objective of stock is to define the actual cost of each unit or commodity for the purpose of identifying the amount of gross profit it makes for the organization.Stock could be transferred to cash in the future under ordinary circumstances,which increase the cash inflows within the organization,which indicates the importance of the commodity stock.In commodity stock the measurement basis is the fixed,specified,measured unit not value that is the outcome of unit multiplied by its price.Ending and beginning inventories are not extracted from the actual inventory but from the theory’s mechanism as the theory provides units of ending and beginning inventories besides their prices and values and accumulations of units and values.Therefore,the errors in evaluating goods in the double entry system which affect profit directly,for example during taking stock of ending inventory some purchases are not listed during the year but in the following year which make the profit of this year increase by the amount of value of these goods and correspondingly profit decrease in the following year by the same value where profit would be posted from a year to another.These errors whether they are intended or not appear a lot at the end of the year especially during practical applications in the double entry system.As for the theory of units there are no such mistakes as the basis of measurement is unit and the resources of assets,which verify them.These resources could be the cash or the bank or recorded receivables so units and assets in these resources must equal actual assets and units at the end of the measured period except units that were sold.Depending on the cash resources (treasury or the bank) to verify assets prevent mistakes which some inventory committees might make.For example,if there is consignment within goods and inventory committee listed it within inventory statements the theory of units system is able to exclude it,as consignment does not have a recording resource in the organization accounts that affect money in the cash or the bank or receivables.Consignment is listed in separate systematic accounts that show the details of these goods.Further,mistakes of inventory committees such as taking stock of goods which are not recorded as purchases and recorded in the forthcoming year or goods recorded as purchases but not listed in inventory statements or purchased goods that are not recorded as purchases or ending inventory.These common mistakes in the double entry system cannot occur in the theory of units as their resources in terms of values and quantities verify assets in terms of quantities and values.For example,goods in stock are either purchased from the organization’s treasury or by a check from the bank or by an accounting entry that shows these goods in receivables accounts.All these resources in terms of units and values have to be verified by the organization’s assets and liabilities.For example,the cash,bank and receivables verify units added to assets listed in the budget including beginning inventory besides the cash,bank and receivables verify units deducted from accounts balances of these assets and beginning inventory.Moreover,if measures of beginning inventory are accumulated whether they are added or subtracted in terms of units and values they have to balance the accumulated measures of the same inventory in the cash,bank and receivables at the end of the measured period.This balance assures the correctness of ending inventory and the organization’s ownership of these goods as they represent assets that the organization paid for or promised to pay for in return for receiving them during the accounting period.Unlike the double entry system in the theory of units there are verification figures that confirm the correctness of numbers of quantities of different articles in the commodity stock.The identification of the article’s card with the stock registers and the actual stock is not a proof on the correctness the articles balances but the identification of actual balances with the main resources of the article confirm the correctness of that balance.Methods of allocating cost in the double entry system (first in,first out and last in,first out) are not consistent with the logic of the unit in allocating costs.The units measurement is fixed and it is not affected by using any method of allocating costs methods.Price and cost vary while unit is fixed.The methods of allocating costs would be useless if each unit with its price is distinguished.In other words each unit is associated with its price so during depreciating this unit in production or selling it is evaluated by its price.If unit is not associated with a price the first in,first out policy would the most appropriate policy to be used in the theory of units as using this policy realize the highest profits of each unit outgoing from the organization to others (sold) because units, prices are in a continuous rising.Further,this policy is distinguished for its historical sequence In addition to that in the budget the values of ending inventory are listed at the latest prices as goods are depreciated according to the precedence of their incoming to the organization so units incoming last remain.In that diagram profit of one unit after applying the first in,first out policy in February is (50 – 20) = $(30) While the profit of a unit after applying the last in,first out policy is (50 – 30) = $(20) Finally, from the previous point the following notes are concluded : 1.Unit is the basis of determining gross profit.Comparing the cost of acquiring the unit to the outcome of its outgoing to others determine gross profit. 2.All the assets in the organization contribute in the gross profit,so it is not possible to accumulate or limit it in a certain account. 3.Indirect costs on the unit could be discounted from the total gross profit of all units that realized profit as these costs are related to the organization as a whole. 4.It is recommended to use the first in,first out policy, as it is objective and based on reality. 5.If the organization uses the staging system in production gross profit must be calculated in case of delivering the product to others and receiving its price. 6.The measurement basis is unit not value 7.Unit is verified by comparing it to its resources not by the identification of its book balances to actual inventory. Theory of units verifies the ownership of commodities in stores by balancing them with their resources in terms of quantities and values.The existence of goods in stores is not a proof of owning them,besides,the identification of the article’s card with stores registers and actual inventory is not a proof on the correctness of this balance.The real proof on the ownership of these goods is represented in comparing the balances of these units to their resources.If recorded quantities of resources balanced with quantities of these units with considering deducting units this would be the real proof that the organization owns these units.So the existence of goods in stores does not prove their ownership unless they are balanced with their resources in terms of values and quantities.Sometimes goods are purchased during the measured period (usually a year) and they are not replaced in stores so they are listed after measuring and classifying them as intangible units incoming to the organization after deducting their units from the organization’s bank or cash or recording them in receivables.In case of the incoming of goods to the organization they are added as tangible measured units in the organization’s stores and they are deducted from intangible units,which were added before and paid for.Also this is applied in case of paying for goods that are not replaced in the organization’s stores for any reason with considering excluding the organization’s assets from its stores even if they were listed in these stores as assets have a special nature and they are not considered of the organization’s stock.During the verification or comparison between the actual units and the resources of acquiring them the increases in units,which are not owned by the organization,are excluded,such as goods that are sold to customers on bills but they are not actually delivered to them or consignment and others.All units whether they are less or more than their resources in the cash,bank or receivables can be easily

… read more »

Response:

The following equation illustrates the way to know cost of goods sold in the double entry system Sales-(beginning stock with cost+purchases-ending stock with cost=cost of goods sold). In this case we get cost of goods sold as a total of all the organization’s units and it is represented in a form of arithmetic complement not in a form of figures.This complement could be exposed to errors and variances in any particular of the previous equation, besides how could we add purchasing of variable units to selling of other variable units and say that profit is a certain amount.In this case drawing a comparison to know gross profit is not correct from the arithmetical and logical aspects as how come we purchase apples and sell oranges then say we realized profit from purchasing apples and selling oranges.This is not logical as profit represents the contribution of each particular of the particulars of the organization’s assets.Gross profit must be taken from each commodity that the organization deals with,as the main objective of stock is to define the actual cost of each unit or commodity for the purpose of identifying the amount of gross profit it makes for the organization.Stock could be transferred to cash in the future under ordinary circumstances,which increase the cash inflows within the organization,which indicates the importance of the commodity stock.In commodity stock the measurement basis is the fixed,specified,measured unit not value that is the outcome of unit multiplied by its price.Ending and beginning inventories are not extracted from the actual inventory but from the theory’s mechanism as the theory provides units of ending and beginning inventories besides their prices and values and accumulations of units and values.Therefore,the errors in evaluating goods in the double entry system which affect profit directly,for example during taking stock of ending inventory some purchases are not listed during the year but in the following year which make the profit of this year increase by the amount of value of these goods and correspondingly profit decrease in the following year by the same value where profit would be posted from a year to another.These errors whether they are intended or not appear a lot at the end of the year especially during practical applications in the double entry system.As for the theory of units there are no such mistakes as the basis of measurement is unit and the resources of assets,which verify them.These resources could be the cash or the bank or recorded receivables so units and assets in these resources must equal actual assets and units at the end of the measured period except units that were sold.Depending on the cash resources (treasury or the bank) to verify assets prevent mistakes which some inventory committees might make.For example,if there is consignment within goods and inventory committee listed it within inventory statements the theory of units system is able to exclude it,as consignment does not have a recording resource in the organization accounts that affect money in the cash or the bank or receivables.Consignment is listed in separate systematic accounts that show the details of these goods.Further,mistakes of inventory committees such as taking stock of goods which are not recorded as purchases and recorded in the forthcoming year or goods recorded as purchases but not listed in inventory statements or purchased goods that are not recorded as purchases or ending inventory.These common mistakes in the double entry system cannot occur in the theory of units as their resources in terms of values and quantities verify assets in terms of quantities and values.For example,goods in stock are either purchased from the organization’s treasury or by a check from the bank or by an accounting entry that shows these goods in receivables accounts.All these resources in terms of units and values have to be verified by the organization’s assets and liabilities.For example,the cash,bank and receivables verify units added to assets listed in the budget including beginning inventory besides the cash,bank and receivables verify units deducted from accounts balances of these assets and beginning inventory.Moreover,if measures of beginning inventory are accumulated whether they are added or subtracted in terms of units and values they have to balance the accumulated measures of the same inventory in the cash,bank and receivables at the end of the measured period.This balance assures the correctness of ending inventory and the organization’s ownership of these goods as they represent assets that the organization paid for or promised to pay for in return for receiving them during the accounting period.Unlike the double entry system in the theory of units there are verification figures that confirm the correctness of numbers of quantities of different articles in the commodity stock.The identification of the article’s card with the stock registers and the actual stock is not a proof on the correctness the articles balances but the identification of actual balances with the main resources of the article confirm the correctness of that balance.Methods of allocating cost in the double entry system (first in,first out and last in,first out) are not consistent with the logic of the unit in allocating costs.The units measurement is fixed and it is not affected by using any method of allocating costs methods.Price and cost vary while unit is fixed.The methods of allocating costs would be useless if each unit with its price is distinguished.In other words each unit is associated with its price so during depreciating this unit in production or selling it is evaluated by its price.If unit is not associated with a price the first in,first out policy would the most appropriate policy to be used in the theory of units as using this policy realize the highest profits of each unit outgoing from the organization to others (sold) because units, prices are in a continuous rising.Further,this policy is distinguished for its historical sequence In addition to that in the budget the values of ending inventory are listed at the latest prices as goods are depreciated according to the precedence of their incoming to the organization so units incoming last remain.In that diagram profit of one unit after applying the first in,first out policy in February is (50 – 20) = $(30) While the profit of a unit after applying the last in,first out policy is (50 – 30) = $(20) Finally, from the previous point the following notes are concluded : 1.Unit is the basis of determining gross profit.Comparing the cost of acquiring the unit to the outcome of its outgoing to others determine gross profit. 2.All the assets in the organization contribute in the gross profit,so it is not possible to accumulate or limit it in a certain account. 3.Indirect costs on the unit could be discounted from the total gross profit of all units that realized profit as these costs are related to the organization as a whole. 4.It is recommended to use the first in,first out policy, as it is objective and based on reality. 5.If the organization uses the staging system in production gross profit must be calculated in case of delivering the product to others and receiving its price. 6.The measurement basis is unit not value 7.Unit is verified by comparing it to its resources not by the identification of its book balances to actual inventory. Theory of units verifies the ownership of commodities in stores by balancing them with their resources in terms of quantities and values.The existence of goods in stores is not a proof of owning them,besides,the identification of the article’s card with stores registers and actual inventory is not a proof on the correctness of this balance.The real proof on the ownership of these goods is represented in comparing the balances of these units to their resources.If recorded quantities of resources balanced with quantities of these units with considering deducting units this would be the real proof that the organization owns these units.So the existence of goods in stores does not prove their ownership unless they are balanced with their resources in terms of values and quantities.Sometimes goods are purchased during the measured period (usually a year) and they are not replaced in stores so they are listed after measuring and classifying them as intangible units incoming to the organization after deducting their units from the organization’s bank or cash or recording them in receivables.In case of the incoming of goods to the organization they are added as tangible measured units in the organization’s stores and they are deducted from intangible units,which were added before and paid for.Also this is applied in case of paying for goods that are not replaced in the organization’s stores for any reason with considering excluding the organization’s assets from its stores even if they were listed in these stores as assets have a special nature and they are not considered of the organization’s stock.During the verification or comparison between the actual units and the resources of acquiring them the increases in units,which are not owned by the organization,are excluded,such as goods that are sold to customers on bills but they are not actually delivered to them or consignment and others.All units whether they are less or more than their resources in the cash,bank or receivables can be easily shown and reconciled to be treated by the theory of units.Verifying any article could be at any time beside the balance of actual units in stock and resources of acquiring them achieve self-control on these units.In the theory of units commodity stock is evaluated on the basis of values that are associated with units,e.g. price of each unit. This evaluation is historical recording but it is not the measurement basis.The basis of measurement is the classified,measured unit while price and value are only historical record … read more »

Response:

Question:

This post can be authenticated at http://www.code4sale.com/cgi-bin/usenet.dll/a?N=425 Sounds like another episode of *Living Through the Red Tape* really makes one wonder how things get accomplished at all in these united states. Congradulations for surviving it. Big hugs! Different episode, but I’ve been there! Lynda Victoria <Victori…@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

news:IxwZ4.12822$LM4.929222@monger.newsread.com… > Hi Group ~ > WOW!!!!!  After fighting for 8 months with California/Oregon they > have > finally capitulated YEA!!!!!!

snip great story – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Victoria > "Education requires that we answer many questions. Continuing > education requires that > we question many of our answers". (William Arthur Ward)

Response:

California Government SUCKS, (coming from a California-native) and for some reason all of the other states bow down to them and send them the money ARGH!!!! OH, And just try to get money out of them, then you get the royal run-around, I especially enjoyed hearing that they have so many more people there, and your case is Not a Priority!!!  You would think that OUR state would stick up for us, but no, its "California Says".  I just thank all the powers that be that it has Finally been resolved!!!!  I hope you have an easier time of it than we had.  I contacted (phone and letter campaign) the Governors advocacy office, The head of the CS Division, D/A Accounting office, (too many others to list) and then finally about a month ago I wrote a letter to the Congress Representative for our state…  Hey, I wonder if that is the one that finally turned the tables???  Whenever I would write a *different agency* I would CC: all of the others that I had previously written.  Maybe the D/A Accounting office saw the list of people that I was sending it to at the bottom of their letter and decided to DO something about it!!!  Wouldn’t that be a Kick!! I hope yours does not take as long — Victoria "Education requires that we answer many questions. Continuing education requires that we question many of our answers". (William Arthur Ward) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Jana Lockhart wrote in message … >Oh my gosh there is hope for us after all. We are from California but live >in Missouri now. My husbands ex lives in California. Was collecting welfare >and then tried to say that one of her children was my husbands even though >he wasn’t . That is finally straightened out and the kids live with us going >on three years now. We pay 120 to a 140 per week to Calif even though these >children live with us. We have to pay all her welfare back. Like you we >couldn’t afford a lawyer. So We have been making phone calls and sending >letters for three years now. >"Victoria" <Victori…@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message >news:IxwZ4.12822$LM4.929222@monger.newsread.com… >> Hi Group ~ >> WOW!!!!!  After fighting for 8 months with California/Oregon they >> have >> finally capitulated YEA!!!!!! >> Just to re-cap, for the entire time (11 years) that my DH has >> been divorced/in the process of divorce he was ordered to pay >> Child support for BOTH of the girls no matter where they were!!!! >> ARGH.   He (then we) had 1 and EX had 1 for about 5 years, then >> EX had both for 3 month visit (when she signed up for welfare, >> and divorce became final <really long drawn out 4 year battle>), >> then we got our 1 back, and 2 months later we got the other also. >> We had both girls for 20 Months (almost 2 years, when 1 went back >> to her Mom.  Then about 1 year later the Other wanted to "try it >> out" With Mom (she has no house rules, i.e.. curfew, cleaning, >> homework etc…) >> Our CS order was placed as a part of the Divorce in Oregon, and >> she was on Welfare with both girls when it was Finalized, >> therefor the Court Arbitrator decided that We had to pay 5 years >> in back CS for *both Girls*, and to fight it we were told that it >> would take $3,500-$5000 retainer, just to begin the fight, and we >> would have to live with the decision the court made, ARGH!!! >> Well, after the battle for the divorce, we were in the *hole* so >> far that we could not afford to fight….  We began making the >> payments, and have paid faithfully ever since.  We tried to have >> it modified 3 times, but they kept coming back to the *original >> order* said that the support was for *the children* combined, and >> we could not break it apart for *each* child, Even when we became >> current, AND had both children living with us!!!!!  <Stupid >> HUH!!> >> Anyway,  the girls are grown 18 and 20, and the 18 year old moved >> out 1.5 years ago (1 month before turning 17), and has been >> living on her own (with her boyfriend).  The Child support in >> Oregon said that we could stop paying (6 months *after* she moved >> out), they closed our case and sent us the final accounting of >> PAID IN FULL!!!  Then 8 months ago, I received my first *Bill* >> from California!!!  They said that we still owed for both of the >> children for the last YEAR, and that they demanded payment!!!! >> We called California, and they said "Sorry, we can not talk to >> you, the Order is in Oregon, and we are only allowed to talk to >> Oregon CS Division"  We called Oregon CS Division, and they said >> "Sorry, you no longer have a case or a case worker, you are paid >> in full. Your (computer) files have been moved to D/A Accounting, >> and hard files are put in storage after they have been closed for >> 1 year"  So, we asked Oregon if they could Send an accounting to >> California to clear up their Accounting, and we were told " >> California will have to send us a written request" So we called >> California asked for the request, and they said "We can not send >> anything to Oregon without a written request from them" AARRGGHH >> After going Back and forth for months, I finally got in touch >> with someone in Oregon office who would *Help*<and it was not >> even her *JOB* to do so>!!!! She was persistent with California >> and broke the Stalemate, WOW!!!!  I received a phone call from >> her this morning and she said that California said that their >> accounting was *WRONG*, <WOW> and that they had overpaid EX, That >> is why they were trying to get it out of us!!  Oregon told them >> to stuff it!!!,  If they were going to collect from Anyone, they >> needed to collect *Their Overpayment* to EX from EX!!!! <Evil >> Grin>  Oregon told them that they would not re-open the case on >> this, and California is to send us a letter of APOLOGY, and a >> Statement that *WE DO NOT OWE!*  Yea!!!!  I am anxiously waiting >> on the mail for this letter, I just might frame it!!!! >> Oh, and the real cool part is that California might actually go >> after EX for the Welfare fraud, and return of overpayments!!!!! >> FINALLY, we are done , even if Ex gets away with it, I am just >> happy to be done with it! >> — >> Victoria >> "Education requires that we answer many questions. Continuing >> education requires that >> we question many of our answers". (William Arthur Ward)

Response:

I was told by the child support office here in Missouri that getting anything out of Calif. is like dragging something out of the black hole. San Diego was charging us child support on my husbands other son and he hadn’t lived there in years. He was getting his child support in Mariposa. Sometimes I think there are just to many offices with people not staying in contact. "Victoria" <Victori…@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

news:o_DZ4.12947$LM4.940083@monger.newsread.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> California Government SUCKS, (coming from a California-native) > and for some reason all of the other states bow down to them and > send them the money ARGH!!!! OH, And just try to get money out of > them, then you get the royal run-around, I especially enjoyed > hearing that they have so many more people there, and your case > is Not a Priority!!!  You would think that OUR state would stick > up for us, but no, its "California Says".  I just thank all the > powers that be that it has Finally been resolved!!!! >  I hope you have an easier time of it than we had.  I contacted > (phone and letter campaign) the Governors advocacy office, The > head of the CS Division, D/A Accounting office, (too many others > to list) and then finally about a month ago I wrote a letter to > the Congress Representative for our state…  Hey, I wonder if > that is the one that finally turned the tables???  Whenever I > would write a *different agency* I would CC: all of the others > that I had previously written.  Maybe the D/A Accounting office > saw the list of people that I was sending it to at the bottom of > their letter and decided to DO something about it!!!  Wouldn’t > that be a Kick!! > I hope yours does not take as long > — > Victoria > "Education requires that we answer many questions. Continuing > education requires that > we question many of our answers". (William Arthur Ward) > Jana Lockhart wrote in message … > >Oh my gosh there is hope for us after all. We are from > California but live > >in Missouri now. My husbands ex lives in California. Was > collecting welfare > >and then tried to say that one of her children was my husbands > even though > >he wasn’t . That is finally straightened out and the kids live > with us going > >on three years now. We pay 120 to a 140 per week to Calif even > though these > >children live with us. We have to pay all her welfare back. Like > you we > >couldn’t afford a lawyer. So We have been making phone calls and > sending > >letters for three years now. > >"Victoria" <Victori…@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:IxwZ4.12822$LM4.929222@monger.newsread.com… > >> Hi Group ~ > >> WOW!!!!!  After fighting for 8 months with California/Oregon > they > >> have > >> finally capitulated YEA!!!!!! > >> Just to re-cap, for the entire time (11 years) that my DH has > >> been divorced/in the process of divorce he was ordered to pay > >> Child support for BOTH of the girls no matter where they > were!!!! > >> ARGH.   He (then we) had 1 and EX had 1 for about 5 years, > then > >> EX had both for 3 month visit (when she signed up for welfare, > >> and divorce became final <really long drawn out 4 year > battle>), > >> then we got our 1 back, and 2 months later we got the other > also. > >> We had both girls for 20 Months (almost 2 years, when 1 went > back > >> to her Mom.  Then about 1 year later the Other wanted to "try > it > >> out" With Mom (she has no house rules, i.e.. curfew, cleaning, > >> homework etc…) > >> Our CS order was placed as a part of the Divorce in Oregon, > and > >> she was on Welfare with both girls when it was Finalized, > >> therefor the Court Arbitrator decided that We had to pay 5 > years > >> in back CS for *both Girls*, and to fight it we were told that > it > >> would take $3,500-$5000 retainer, just to begin the fight, and > we > >> would have to live with the decision the court made, ARGH!!! > >> Well, after the battle for the divorce, we were in the *hole* > so > >> far that we could not afford to fight….  We began making the > >> payments, and have paid faithfully ever since.  We tried to > have > >> it modified 3 times, but they kept coming back to the > *original > >> order* said that the support was for *the children* combined, > and > >> we could not break it apart for *each* child, Even when we > became > >> current, AND had both children living with us!!!!!  <Stupid > >> HUH!!> > >> Anyway,  the girls are grown 18 and 20, and the 18 year old > moved > >> out 1.5 years ago (1 month before turning 17), and has been > >> living on her own (with her boyfriend).  The Child support in > >> Oregon said that we could stop paying (6 months *after* she > moved > >> out), they closed our case and sent us the final accounting of > >> PAID IN FULL!!!  Then 8 months ago, I received my first *Bill* > >> from California!!!  They said that we still owed for both of > the > >> children for the last YEAR, and that they demanded payment!!!! > >> We called California, and they said "Sorry, we can not talk to > >> you, the Order is in Oregon, and we are only allowed to talk > to > >> Oregon CS Division"  We called Oregon CS Division, and they > said > >> "Sorry, you no longer have a case or a case worker, you are > paid > >> in full. Your (computer) files have been moved to D/A > Accounting, > >> and hard files are put in storage after they have been closed > for > >> 1 year"  So, we asked Oregon if they could Send an accounting > to > >> California to clear up their Accounting, and we were told " > >> California will have to send us a written request" So we > called > >> California asked for the request, and they said "We can not > send > >> anything to Oregon without a written request from them" > AARRGGHH > >> After going Back and forth for months, I finally got in touch > >> with someone in Oregon office who would *Help*<and it was not > >> even her *JOB* to do so>!!!! She was persistent with > California > >> and broke the Stalemate, WOW!!!!  I received a phone call from > >> her this morning and she said that California said that their > >> accounting was *WRONG*, <WOW> and that they had overpaid EX, > That > >> is why they were trying to get it out of us!!  Oregon told > them > >> to stuff it!!!,  If they were going to collect from Anyone, > they > >> needed to collect *Their Overpayment* to EX from EX!!!! <Evil > >> Grin>  Oregon told them that they would not re-open the case > on > >> this, and California is to send us a letter of APOLOGY, and a > >> Statement that *WE DO NOT OWE!*  Yea!!!!  I am anxiously > waiting > >> on the mail for this letter, I just might frame it!!!! > >> Oh, and the real cool part is that California might actually > go > >> after EX for the Welfare fraud, and return of > overpayments!!!!! > >> FINALLY, we are done , even if Ex gets away with it, I am > just > >> happy to be done with it! > >> — > >> Victoria > >> "Education requires that we answer many questions. Continuing > >> education requires that > >> we question many of our answers". (William Arthur Ward)

Response:

    I’m sorry – but I laughed right out.     Such red tape.  Congrats.     Course – I’ll be waiting for the post that says you got your apology from CA.  They are pretty dogmatic about coming after the non-welfare parent for repayment *regardless* of who has physical custody!  As in "waaah? welfare fraud?  No way!  Pay up." > Oh, and the real cool part is that California might actually go > after EX for the Welfare fraud, and return of overpayments!!!!!

    You don’t want this really.  CA will subpoena you to come testify. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> FINALLY, we are done , even if Ex gets away with it, I am just > happy to be done with it! > — > Victoria

Response:

Oh my gosh there is hope for us after all. We are from California but live in Missouri now. My husbands ex lives in California. Was collecting welfare and then tried to say that one of her children was my husbands even though he wasn’t . That is finally straightened out and the kids live with us going on three years now. We pay 120 to a 140 per week to Calif even though these children live with us. We have to pay all her welfare back. Like you we couldn’t afford a lawyer. So We have been making phone calls and sending letters for three years now. "Victoria" <Victori…@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message

news:IxwZ4.12822$LM4.929222@monger.newsread.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi Group ~ > WOW!!!!!  After fighting for 8 months with California/Oregon they > have > finally capitulated YEA!!!!!! > Just to re-cap, for the entire time (11 years) that my DH has > been divorced/in the process of divorce he was ordered to pay > Child support for BOTH of the girls no matter where they were!!!! > ARGH.   He (then we) had 1 and EX had 1 for about 5 years, then > EX had both for 3 month visit (when she signed up for welfare, > and divorce became final <really long drawn out 4 year battle>), > then we got our 1 back, and 2 months later we got the other also. > We had both girls for 20 Months (almost 2 years, when 1 went back > to her Mom.  Then about 1 year later the Other wanted to "try it > out" With Mom (she has no house rules, i.e.. curfew, cleaning, > homework etc…) > Our CS order was placed as a part of the Divorce in Oregon, and > she was on Welfare with both girls when it was Finalized, > therefor the Court Arbitrator decided that We had to pay 5 years > in back CS for *both Girls*, and to fight it we were told that it > would take $3,500-$5000 retainer, just to begin the fight, and we > would have to live with the decision the court made, ARGH!!! > Well, after the battle for the divorce, we were in the *hole* so > far that we could not afford to fight….  We began making the > payments, and have paid faithfully ever since.  We tried to have > it modified 3 times, but they kept coming back to the *original > order* said that the support was for *the children* combined, and > we could not break it apart for *each* child, Even when we became > current, AND had both children living with us!!!!!  <Stupid > HUH!!> > Anyway,  the girls are grown 18 and 20, and the 18 year old moved > out 1.5 years ago (1 month before turning 17), and has been > living on her own (with her boyfriend).  The Child support in > Oregon said that we could stop paying (6 months *after* she moved > out), they closed our case and sent us the final accounting of > PAID IN FULL!!!  Then 8 months ago, I received my first *Bill* > from California!!!  They said that we still owed for both of the > children for the last YEAR, and that they demanded payment!!!! > We called California, and they said "Sorry, we can not talk to > you, the Order is in Oregon, and we are only allowed to talk to > Oregon CS Division"  We called Oregon CS Division, and they said > "Sorry, you no longer have a case or a case worker, you are paid > in full. Your (computer) files have been moved to D/A Accounting, > and hard files are put in storage after they have been closed for > 1 year"  So, we asked Oregon if they could Send an accounting to > California to clear up their Accounting, and we were told " > California will have to send us a written request" So we called > California asked for the request, and they said "We can not send > anything to Oregon without a written request from them"  AARRGGHH > After going Back and forth for months, I finally got in touch > with someone in Oregon office who would *Help*<and it was not > even her *JOB* to do so>!!!! She was persistent with California > and broke the Stalemate, WOW!!!!  I received a phone call from > her this morning and she said that California said that their > accounting was *WRONG*, <WOW> and that they had overpaid EX, That > is why they were trying to get it out of us!!  Oregon told them > to stuff it!!!,  If they were going to collect from Anyone, they > needed to collect *Their Overpayment* to EX from EX!!!! <Evil > Grin>  Oregon told them that they would not re-open the case on > this, and California is to send us a letter of APOLOGY, and a > Statement that *WE DO NOT OWE!*  Yea!!!!  I am anxiously waiting > on the mail for this letter, I just might frame it!!!! > Oh, and the real cool part is that California might actually go > after EX for the Welfare fraud, and return of overpayments!!!!! > FINALLY, we are done , even if Ex gets away with it, I am just > happy to be done with it! > — > Victoria > "Education requires that we answer many questions. Continuing > education requires that > we question many of our answers". (William Arthur Ward)

Response:

merrie wrote in message <8h6fjk$nq…@allhats.xcski.com>… >    I’m sorry – but I laughed right out.

Thats alright I giggled insanely  <BWAHAHAHAHA  tee hee  oh side ache> >    Such red tape.  Congrats.

This is not even the *tip* of the huge iceburg of what we went through for the last 8 years especially. >    Course – I’ll be waiting for the post that says you got your apology >from CA.  They are pretty dogmatic about coming after the non-welfare parent >for repayment *regardless* of who has physical custody!  As in "waaah? >welfare fraud?  No way!  Pay up." >> Oh, and the real cool part is that California might actually go >> after EX for the Welfare fraud, and return of overpayments!!!!! >    You don’t want this really.  CA will subpoena you to come

testify. THEY are the ones who figured it out!!!! WE never said a word!!!! I guess something having to do with school records, and medical insurance and bills that we carried on them. Also Tax returns .  She was getting housing, re-training, money, foodstamps, reim for childcare, etc…..   We just let her roll out as much rope as she wanted too.  Things catch up with you after a while, and they just changed to computerized (from hand written ledgers) and figured it all out by themselves <tee hee>. I have told them that I have no Idea what she collected <evil grin> from them, I Was Not There >> FINALLY, we are done , even if Ex gets away with it, I am just >> happy to be done with it! >> — >> Victoria

BBBBWWWWAAAAA  HAAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Response:

Hi Group ~ WOW!!!!!  After fighting for 8 months with California/Oregon they have finally capitulated YEA!!!!!! Just to re-cap, for the entire time (11 years) that my DH has been divorced/in the process of divorce he was ordered to pay Child support for BOTH of the girls no matter where they were!!!! ARGH.   He (then we) had 1 and EX had 1 for about 5 years, then EX had both for 3 month visit (when she signed up for welfare, and divorce became final <really long drawn out 4 year battle>), then we got our 1 back, and 2 months later we got the other also. We had both girls for 20 Months (almost 2 years, when 1 went back to her Mom.  Then about 1 year later the Other wanted to "try it out" With Mom (she has no house rules, i.e.. curfew, cleaning, homework etc…) Our CS order was placed as a part of the Divorce in Oregon, and she was on Welfare with both girls when it was Finalized, therefor the Court Arbitrator decided that We had to pay 5 years in back CS for *both Girls*, and to fight it we were told that it would take $3,500-$5000 retainer, just to begin the fight, and we would have to live with the decision the court made, ARGH!!! Well, after the battle for the divorce, we were in the *hole* so far that we could not afford to fight….  We began making the payments, and have paid faithfully ever since.  We tried to have it modified 3 times, but they kept coming back to the *original order* said that the support was for *the children* combined, and we could not break it apart for *each* child, Even when we became current, AND had both children living with us!!!!!  <Stupid HUH!!> Anyway,  the girls are grown 18 and 20, and the 18 year old moved out 1.5 years ago (1 month before turning 17), and has been living on her own (with her boyfriend).  The Child support in Oregon said that we could stop paying (6 months *after* she moved out), they closed our case and sent us the final accounting of PAID IN FULL!!!  Then 8 months ago, I received my first *Bill* from California!!!  They said that we still owed for both of the children for the last YEAR, and that they demanded payment!!!! We called California, and they said "Sorry, we can not talk to you, the Order is in Oregon, and we are only allowed to talk to Oregon CS Division"  We called Oregon CS Division, and they said "Sorry, you no longer have a case or a case worker, you are paid in full. Your (computer) files have been moved to D/A Accounting, and hard files are put in storage after they have been closed for 1 year"  So, we asked Oregon if they could Send an accounting to California to clear up their Accounting, and we were told " California will have to send us a written request" So we called California asked for the request, and they said "We can not send anything to Oregon without a written request from them"  AARRGGHH After going Back and forth for months, I finally got in touch with someone in Oregon office who would *Help*<and it was not even her *JOB* to do so>!!!! She was persistent with California and broke the Stalemate, WOW!!!!  I received a phone call from her this morning and she said that California said that their accounting was *WRONG*, <WOW> and that they had overpaid EX, That is why they were trying to get it out of us!!  Oregon told them to stuff it!!!,  If they were going to collect from Anyone, they needed to collect *Their Overpayment* to EX from EX!!!! <Evil Grin>  Oregon told them that they would not re-open the case on this, and California is to send us a letter of APOLOGY, and a Statement that *WE DO NOT OWE!*  Yea!!!!  I am anxiously waiting on the mail for this letter, I just might frame it!!!! Oh, and the real cool part is that California might actually go after EX for the Welfare fraud, and return of overpayments!!!!! FINALLY, we are done , even if Ex gets away with it, I am just happy to be done with it! — Victoria "Education requires that we answer many questions. Continuing education requires that we question many of our answers". (William Arthur Ward)

Response:

Question:

It would be nice if you knew something about tax code before you run your mouth off about this.  1706 specifically applies to tech workers.  It is something that I am working with (via the ICCA) to get over-turned. The NON-Tech workers fall into various other sections of the IRC.  Sometimes, standard practice of an industry is "safe-harboured" (I don’t know how else to put this).  That means that if it is an industry practice to handle contractors a certain way, that in other industries would indicate an employer-employee relationship, the "contractor" is still independent and NOT a captive employee.  It occurs to me that this is typical of the the "construction" industry, where a finishing carpenter is still considered a contractor, even though you are exercising a certain amount of "control" over that individual. Meanwhile, I have no idea if this applies to you in Canada, and, as someone else observed, this really isn’t an accounting question (per se). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Before metamorphosing into CCRA, RevCan issued a pamphlet called "Employee or Self-Employed?" (4110).  You can obtain a copy, free, by calling or visiting any CCRA office, or downloading from http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/formspubs/forms/all-e.html.   Very good reply Vernon..Here in the now jack booted USA, I am almost certain he would be declared an employee by the Nazi IRS…Our now dictatorship has numerous criteria for determining vendor and employee…For instance…If I am a janitorial service contractor, and I supply anything to a sub contractor, the new dictatorship here declares them an employee…If I am a web site designer that subs out work to a home worker and give them any assistance whatsoever, they become an employee…This is the work of our new dictatorship and communist government here in the US…Hopefully Canada will remain a free country, and not become a dictatorship like the US… — Cody & Helen Hart Laughing Cantalope Inc. Osceola, IA. http://www.laughingcantalope.com http://www.brightbuilders.com http://www.myshipmodels.com Bringing a smile to the face of the world

– Steve Thompson OSP LLC 330/335-9907 office 330/334-2097 fax Remove "_" in email address to contact me — anti-spam measures in use

Response:

Hi, you certainly are an employee you have no attributes of a contractor front the boss (if you dont mind losing the job ?) put it in writing that you object to breaking the tax law and date it, may be able to get a retro ruling and a refund of tax wrongly paid. Peter

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am currently paid as a contract peson instead of an employee. I have to submit my taxes, on a quartely basis to Rev Canada, None of the employee deductions, such as CPP, EI , Income tax are dedicted from  our paycheques. However, in all ways,personall I believe  myself to be a employee,  my hours of work are determined by my employer.  My employers  directs and control what work I do.  I am doing accouting work myself.  However the employer pays all workers as contract labour work. He then does not have to pay the employer portion of the CPP, and EI which is a savings to him. When I do my Income Tax Returns, as a contractor, I will have to  pay double CPP, which in fact lowers by actual earings  by 4+ % I work on his premies from 9-5. What is your opinion?  What am I, contractor, or employee by Revenue Canada’s rules and regulations.

Response:

Before metamorphosing into CCRA, RevCan issued a pamphlet called "Employee or Self-Employed?" (4110).  You can obtain a copy, free, by calling or visiting any CCRA office, or downloading from http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/formspubs/forms/all-e.html. The pamphlet is a checklist of about 75-80 questions in several sections.  Each section concludes, "If you answer ‘payer’ to most of these questions ….. an employer-employee relationship probably exists.  Otherwise …. a business relationship may exist."  Also, "Each employment is unique and must be examined and analyzed individually, based on the facts, taking into account the context of the employment."  And, finally, "This pamphlet is strictly a tool to assist you in determining ….. If you are in doubt after you use this pamphlet, contact your tax services office to request a formal ruling." As a rule of thumb, if either you or your employer believe that you are an employee, CCRA will probably agree.  If you BOTH believe that you are NOT an employee, CCRA may sometimes agree. You haven’t provided anywhere near enough information to make a reasoned determination.  Anyway, it sounds as if you’ve already made up your mind and just want a bunch of people to agree with you. Have you discussed this with your employer? How much does it bother you? I’d bet that a CCRA ruling would agree with you, but your employer would probably not be happy about it. By the way, it would be more appropriate to discuss this in the can.taxes group – it’s a question about Canadian tax, not about accounting.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am currently paid as a contract peson instead of an employee. However, in all ways,personall I believe  myself to be a employee,  my hours of work are determined by my employer.  My employers  directs and control what work I do.  I am doing accouting work myself.  However the employer pays all workers as contract labour work. What is your opinion?  What am I, contractor, or employee by Revenue Canada’s rules and regulations.

Response:

Before metamorphosing into CCRA, RevCan issued a pamphlet called "Employee or Self-Employed?" (4110).  You can obtain a copy, free, by calling or visiting any CCRA office, or downloading from http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/formspubs/forms/all-e.html.

  Very good reply Vernon..Here in the now jack booted USA, I am almost certain he would be declared an employee by the Nazi IRS…Our now dictatorship has numerous criteria for determining vendor and employee…For instance…If I am a janitorial service contractor, and I supply anything to a sub contractor, the new dictatorship here declares them an employee…If I am a web site designer that subs out work to a home worker and give them any assistance whatsoever, they become an employee…This is the work of our new dictatorship and communist government here in the US…Hopefully Canada will remain a free country, and not become a dictatorship like the US… — Cody & Helen Hart Laughing Cantalope Inc. Osceola, IA. http://www.laughingcantalope.com http://www.brightbuilders.com http://www.myshipmodels.com Bringing a smile to the face of the world

Response:

I am currently paid as a contract peson instead of an employee. I have to submit my taxes, on a quartely basis to Rev Canada, None of the employee deductions, such as CPP, EI , Income tax are dedicted from  our paycheques. However, in all ways,personall I believe  myself to be a employee,  my hours of work are determined by my employer.  My employers  directs and control what work I do.  I am doing accouting work myself.  However the employer pays all workers as contract labour work. He then does not have to pay the employer portion of the CPP, and EI which is a savings to him. When I do my Income Tax Returns, as a contractor, I will have to  pay double CPP, which in fact lowers by actual earings  by 4+ % I work on his premies from 9-5. What is your opinion?  What am I, contractor, or employee by Revenue Canada’s rules and regulations.

Response:

Question:

I’ve never heard of a "taxable fringe benefit" as you describe it below.  A business deduction is not taxed and is not reported on any thing like a W2 where I come from.  It is simply an itemized deduction on the corporate return. Since there is little or no business reason to own the airplane other than to provide it to the owner,  if the benefit is not reported on W2 penalties

I don’t know, Jim. I’m from Alabama, too, and when I had a company car, the value of my personal mileage certainly WAS reported on my W2. (I did not have to reimburse the employer — it was a taxable fringe benefit.) Deductible to the employer, and imputed income to me. As another example, my group life insurance in excess of $50,000 is a taxable fringe benefit, tax deductible to the company and imputed income (at specified rates) to me. — Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.

Response:

In your case the plane sound like it is a business expense and not a fringe benefit.  In Jay’s case (as stated), aircraft expenses are not business expenses and are not deductible by the business.

Since he’s an S corp. If a C corp, it would be [presumably] deductible to the corp as compensation expense and taxable to Jay as imputed income. — Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.

Response:

Eh?  Liability and protection of personal assets are the one of the main reasons corps are formed.  That plus taxes. Of course, these days, anyone can be sued for any reason by anybody for unlimited bucks but that’s beside the point. Why do you say that? Jim Fisher

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Having the airplane owned by a corporation won’t protect your assets if you crash and are the pilot.  It might protect them if someone else crashed the plane. Mike MU-2

Response:

In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!)

No problem, however, remember that they will have to determine the value of that Bonus and add it to his taxable income. As it turns out, we use the plane for business regularly — but personal use is far greater.  Any tax guys out there to answer this one?  My tax accountant hasn’t batted an eye on this one in yet — but maybe he’s wrong?

As long as you keep all the deductions etc…appropriately scaled (and have contemporaneous records for such) to the business part of the use everything is fine.  The IRS doesn’t really deal with it any different than cars.

Response:

The corp shields you from liability as the plane’s owner, but not as the pilot. Same as if you were flying a rented plane. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Eh?  Liability and protection of personal assets are the one of the main reasons corps are formed.  That plus taxes. Of course, these days, anyone can be sued for any reason by anybody for unlimited bucks but that’s beside the point. Why do you say that? Jim Fisher Having the airplane owned by a corporation won’t protect your assets if you crash and are the pilot.  It might protect them if someone else crashed the plane. Mike MU-2

– Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.

Response:

You will be liable because you are the PILOT.  You would be personably liable even if you or your company didn’t own the airplane.  Corporations don’t shield anyone from their own actions. Mike MU-2 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Eh?  Liability and protection of personal assets are the one of the main reasons corps are formed.  That plus taxes. Of course, these days, anyone can be sued for any reason by anybody for unlimited bucks but that’s beside the point. Why do you say that? Jim Fisher Having the airplane owned by a corporation won’t protect your assets if you crash and are the pilot.  It might protect them if someone else crashed the plane. Mike MU-2

Response:

You are mostly correct, it would be taxable to the recipient not the corporation.  If I decided that my corp will buy a house in Jackson Hole for my (employee of corp) use, then the value of the use of the house is taxable and is reported on form W2.  It is the same as if the corporation paid to rent the house for my use. In your case the plane sound like it is a business expense and not a fringe benefit.  In Jay’s case (as stated), aircraft expenses are not business expenses and are not deductible by the business. Mike MU-2 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I neglected to mention that my scenario departed from the original scenario in one important way:  My scenario assumes that the plane is used primarily for business purposes and that all expenses are perfectly legitimate. There are no cans of worms to be found here.  I was only attempting to answer your original question of what advantage there would be to having a company own a plane. I’ve never heard of a "taxable fringe benefit" as you describe it below.  A business deduction is not taxed and is not reported on any thing like a W2 where I come from.  It is simply an itemized deduction on the corporate return. Jim Fisher North Alabama Jay would have $5000 in taxable fringe benefits which must be reported. This is a can of worms and could lead to problems if one gets audited. Since there is little or no business reason to own the airplane other than to provide it to the owner,  if the benefit is not reported on W2 penalties will likely be assessed. Mike MU-2 Successful Capitalist

Response:

I neglected to mention that my scenario departed from the original scenario in one important way:  My scenario assumes that the plane is used primarily for business purposes and that all expenses are perfectly legitimate.  There are no cans of worms to be found here.  I was only attempting to answer your original question of what advantage there would be to having a company own a plane. I’ve never heard of a "taxable fringe benefit" as you describe it below.  A business deduction is not taxed and is not reported on any thing like a W2 where I come from.  It is simply an itemized deduction on the corporate return. Jim Fisher North Alabama

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jay would have $5000 in taxable fringe benefits which must be reported. This is a can of worms and could lead to problems if one gets audited. Since there is little or no business reason to own the airplane other than to provide it to the owner,  if the benefit is not reported on W2 penalties will likely be assessed. Mike MU-2 Successful Capitalist

Response:

Having the airplane owned by a corporation won’t protect your assets if you crash and are the pilot.  It might protect them if someone else crashed the plane. Mike MU-2 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My plane’s corporation was set up for the sole purpose of pleasure flying. That is what the "business" does and nothing else.  It was set up to, (a); protect my assets if I corkscrew into an apartment complex and (b); provide a simple, efficient and tax-friendly means of managing the assets of the company (the plane) and (c): provide for an easy means of selling shares in our company to others who wish to join us or if somebody wants to bail out. Most of this stuff is spelled out in the corporation’s Letters of Incorporation.  I bet your Letter don’t say much about a plane, does it? The purpose of YOUR corporation is to deliver circulars and doesn’t have a whole lot to do with flying.  If I were to let my company buy my plane for me, I would definately receive the liability protection afforded by the corporation but my accountant probably would attempt to disuade me from writing everything off. He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane.  It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay. Your bank MAY have been considering the liability side of this ONLY.  In that case, it WOULD be foolish to form another corporation.  In my case, I’d have to make my plane partners my business partners.  I like these fellers but I don’t wanna be in business with ‘em! In my case, I really don’t expect think there much of a tax benefit in havin g a seperate corporationn own the plane.  I reckon I’ll find out when I eventually do my taxes (still have a few days, ya’ know). In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!) And my accountant says that I COULD let the company buy me a Dodge Viper (and a plane for that matter, I reckon) but says that the Uncle Sam MAY frown upon me.  I do NOT wanna be frowned at by that guy! Jim Fisher Cherokee 180C North Alabama

Response:

Hypothetical question #1:  Why would it matter how much my company uses the plane on "business", so long as all personal usage is reimbursed?

First, let me say that I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about here. I’m a computer nerd, not an accountant.  Like you, I pay accountants to know all this stuff for me.  The following statements are theories I have developed from information my accountant has realyed to me over the years and may have no basis in fact.  I also know that YOU know as much or more about this stuff than I. But we both like a good debate.  ;-) That being said . . . .: It matters for the same reason that you could not get away with buying a $150,000 motor home for your business if you rarely used said motor home for business purposes.  Otherwise, why not have your company buy your house, lawn tractor and beach house?  You can’t do that ’cause they aren’t used for business or, if they are, not used enough to report it to Uncle Sam. People DO, in fact, allow their company to buy beach houses and other stuff. But some of these same people get taken to the cleaners when the IRS disagrees with their accountant.  Backpayments and interest are okay but IRS penalties for gross "miscalculations" really suck. This is not to say that you cannot re-imburse yourself for expenses involved with company functions related to owning these assets, of course.  If you throw a big coompany party in your motor home, you can let the company pay for the party and the flat tire you get from running over a beer bottle . . . but you already know all that, of course. All this being said, (and I backtrack on my "percentage theory" a little) if you or your accountant can prove to the IRS that having this plane is necessary to performing your duties as president and furthers the profitability of the company, you are perfectly within your rights to write it off.  Even if you only use it once a year.  Your only obligation is to prove your case to our Uncle. not to your accountant or banker.  That once per year trip better be a very important and/or profitable one if you want Uncle to pay for you plane the whole year! I don’t think my accountant would let me get away with having the company buy my plane.  But that may change as I use the plane more and more for business. Hypothetical question #2: Assuming the company NEVER uses the plane, how would this be any different than the corporation you have set up for the sole purpose of owning the plane?

My plane’s corporation was set up for the sole purpose of pleasure flying. That is what the "business" does and nothing else.  It was set up to, (a); protect my assets if I corkscrew into an apartment complex and (b); provide a simple, efficient and tax-friendly means of managing the assets of the company (the plane) and (c): provide for an easy means of selling shares in our company to others who wish to join us or if somebody wants to bail out. Most of this stuff is spelled out in the corporation’s Letters of Incorporation.  I bet your Letter don’t say much about a plane, does it? The purpose of YOUR corporation is to deliver circulars and doesn’t have a whole lot to do with flying.  If I were to let my company buy my plane for me, I would definately receive the liability protection afforded by the corporation but my accountant probably would attempt to disuade me from writing everything off. He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane.  It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay.

Your bank MAY have been considering the liability side of this ONLY.  In that case, it WOULD be foolish to form another corporation.  In my case, I’d have to make my plane partners my business partners.  I like these fellers but I don’t wanna be in business with ‘em! In my case, I really don’t expect think there much of a tax benefit in havin g a seperate corporationn own the plane.  I reckon I’ll find out when I eventually do my taxes (still have a few days, ya’ know). In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!)

And my accountant says that I COULD let the company buy me a Dodge Viper (and a plane for that matter, I reckon) but says that the Uncle Sam MAY frown upon me.  I do NOT wanna be frowned at by that guy! Jim Fisher Cherokee 180C North Alabama

Response:

James, this thread has gone on a tangent slightly away from the training question, but I wanted to share my initial reactions to your post. While they are a little on the smart-assed side, there is a kernel of truth that might help you evaluate this. I am currently training to get my private pilots license. I am also an owner of a small business. I have an airport nearby and could benefit from being able to fly to clients who need me to work onsite. Does anyone know if I can expense my training or even the purchase of a plane?

Yes. You can expense whatever you want; they are your books. Now if you are a public company and need to get an auditor’s opinion, you may get a qualified opinion if you claim a material expense with which they do not agree, but you still can expense it. Another question is "Can I deduct it in determining taxable income?" The answer is certainly "yes". Maybe even legally, if you have a sound rationale for doing so. Most of the responses so far have been to still a third question: "Will the IRS allow a deduction, and if not, will the tax court be likely to back up the IRS position?" This was probably the intent of your question. However, keeping these distinctions in mind may be helpful. Just a business person; NOT a tax advisor, so FWIW… — Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.

Response:

And this explains why, in my previous note, I said "IF you reimburse at completely reasonable rates." This note explains the potential gain if you reimburse the company for less than full cost (e.g., $1,000, when full bill was $5,000) and don’t get caught. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In this example, Jay’s company owns the plane.  His company makes all the payments.  Pays for all maintenance and all other incidental expanses.  Jay simply pays his company back a certain amount per hour/mile every time he flies. At the end of the year, Jay’s total TAXABLE profit for the year is, say, $10.000.00  (hypothetical, o’ course, Jay makes more than Bill Gates). Jay’s total bill for the plane for the year is $6,000.00 but Jay paid the company back $1,000.00 for personal use. Jay didn’t have to pay ANY of the bank payments or maintenance out of his after-taxes pocket.  The company did that for him at a pre-tax rate making business ownership of the plane, from a tax standpoint, considerably cheaper than owning it himself. So, Jay, being the greedy capitalist pig that he is, only pays taxes on the remaining $5,000 dollars profit instead of the full $10,000 thereby cutting his tax bill in half. Jim Fisher Capitalist Pig North Alabama

– Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.

Response:

What is the point of the business owning the plane if most of the use is personal and reimbursed to the business? Mike MU-2

Tax write-off, Mike. If I may be so presumptuous, I’ll explain how it works: In this example, Jay’s company owns the plane.  His company makes all the payments.  Pays for all maintenance and all other incidental expanses.  Jay simply pays his company back a certain amount per hour/mile every time he flies. At the end of the year, Jay’s total TAXABLE profit for the year is, say, $10.000.00  (hypothetical, o’ course, Jay makes more than Bill Gates). Jay’s total bill for the plane for the year is $6,000.00 but Jay paid the company back $1,000.00 for personal use. Jay didn’t have to pay ANY of the bank payments or maintenance out of his after-taxes pocket.  The company did that for him at a pre-tax rate making business ownership of the plane, from a tax standpoint, considerably cheaper than owning it himself. So, Jay, being the greedy capitalist pig that he is, only pays taxes on the remaining $5,000 dollars profit instead of the full $10,000 thereby cutting his tax bill in half. Jim Fisher Capitalist Pig North Alabama

Response:

In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too.

I would think so. If the corporation you were a C corp, it would have to worry about reasonableness of compensation. But last I heard, bonuses were taxable, so what does that get you? And of course, as an S corp, you would just be moving money from one pocket to the other. — Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.

Response:

Even assuming NO business usage, there are still a couple of reasons for a corp to own (rather than personal ownership). Second, you’re spending pre-tax income on aircraft maintenance and upgrades, rather than post-tax.

Depends on how realistic your personal charge for use is. If perfectly realistic, this is not an advantage. E.g., if 100% personal, company spends $20,000 on operating expense and deducts it. However, you reimburse that $20,000, which is taxable income to the corp. And since you are an S corp, there is no chance of tax arbitrage here, as far as I see. NOT a tax guy, so take it FWIW. — Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.

Response:

Jay would have $5000 in taxable fringe benefits which must be reported. This is a can of worms and could lead to problems if one gets audited. Since there is little or no business reason to own the airplane other than to provide it to the owner,  if the benefit is not reported on W2 penalties will likely be assessed. Mike MU-2 Successful Capitalist – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the point of the business owning the plane if most of the use is personal and reimbursed to the business? Mike MU-2 Tax write-off, Mike. If I may be so presumptuous, I’ll explain how it works: In this example, Jay’s company owns the plane.  His company makes all the payments.  Pays for all maintenance and all other incidental expanses.  Jay simply pays his company back a certain amount per hour/mile every time he flies. At the end of the year, Jay’s total TAXABLE profit for the year is, say, $10.000.00  (hypothetical, o’ course, Jay makes more than Bill Gates). Jay’s total bill for the plane for the year is $6,000.00 but Jay paid the company back $1,000.00 for personal use. Jay didn’t have to pay ANY of the bank payments or maintenance out of his after-taxes pocket.  The company did that for him at a pre-tax rate making business ownership of the plane, from a tax standpoint, considerably cheaper than owning it himself. So, Jay, being the greedy capitalist pig that he is, only pays taxes on the remaining $5,000 dollars profit instead of the full $10,000 thereby cutting his tax bill in half. Jim Fisher Capitalist Pig North Alabama

Response:

But you need to reimburse for the use of the airplane with after tax dollars and if there is a difference between the reimbursement and the actual expense of providing the airplane, then that is taxable income paid to you (taxable fringe benefit). Mike MU-2 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Even assuming NO business usage, there are still a couple of reasons for a corp to own (rather than personal ownership). It’s advantageous from a liability point of view, although the amount is debatable.  Everybody sues everybody nowadays, regardless.  Maybe you get to keep your house, when the dust has settled after the lawsuit? Second, you’re spending pre-tax income on aircraft maintenance and upgrades, rather than post-tax. I can’t think of any other reasons — but those sound pretty good! — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 What is the point of the business owning the plane if most of the use is personal and reimbursed to the business? Mike MU-2 Jim, Hypothetical question #1:  Why would it matter how much my company uses the plane on "business", so long as all personal usage is reimbursed? Hypothetical question #2: Assuming the company NEVER uses the plane, how would this be any different than the corporation you have set up for the sole purpose of owning the plane? An aside: In 1998 I was going to set up a separate corp to own the plane, not being sure if I had enough "business" use in my company to justify owning it. My lending institution told me it would be foolish to set up yet ANOTHER corporation, if we already had an "S Corp" up and running.  The bank president told me to simply reimburse my company for personal use…he owns a Bonanza himself… He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane.  It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay. In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!) As it turns out, we use the plane for business regularly — but personal use is far greater.  Any tax guys out there to answer this one?  My tax accountant hasn’t batted an eye on this one in yet — but maybe he’s wrong? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 Jay, Actually, I don’t use my plane for business  . . . yet. My plane is owned by a Delaware corp. of which I am 1/3 partner (other two partners only fly a total of about 30 hours a year each – sweet deal for me).  Just like you, our "company" bills each of us for hours flown and I cut a check for the hours. However, I will soon my using the plane for business.  Will be flying it down to beach area looking at investment property.  When I do, I will reimburse myself 100% for every hour flown.  $35.00 per hour in my case. I’m not sure what the maximum hourly rate (or $ per mile) that the IRS allows (help anybody?) but I’ll pay myself back 100% until I hear differently.  If the IRS bitches, I’ll simply pay them back plus interest. It’s happened before.  Nothing to worry about as long as I’m attempting to be 100% legal about it (the IRS looks at "intent" when deciding whether or not to assess penalties PLUS interest or just interest). The only thing that may or may not be "kosher" in your case is this: Do you fly your company’s plane on company business enough to justify it being owned and paid for by the company?  I forget what the formula is, but you gotta be using it for business X% of total time.  If not, the IRS is likely to disallow all company expenditures on the plane. Anybody out there illuminate this further? Jim Fisher North Alabama How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane.  We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

Response:

Even assuming NO business usage, there are still a couple of reasons for a corp to own (rather than personal ownership). It’s advantageous from a liability point of view, although the amount is debatable.  Everybody sues everybody nowadays, regardless.  Maybe you get to keep your house, when the dust has settled after the lawsuit? Second, you’re spending pre-tax income on aircraft maintenance and upgrades, rather than post-tax. I can’t think of any other reasons — but those sound pretty good! — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the point of the business owning the plane if most of the use is personal and reimbursed to the business? Mike MU-2 Jim, Hypothetical question #1:  Why would it matter how much my company uses the plane on "business", so long as all personal usage is reimbursed? Hypothetical question #2: Assuming the company NEVER uses the plane, how would this be any different than the corporation you have set up for the sole purpose of owning the plane? An aside: In 1998 I was going to set up a separate corp to own the plane, not being sure if I had enough "business" use in my company to justify owning it. My lending institution told me it would be foolish to set up yet ANOTHER corporation, if we already had an "S Corp" up and running.  The bank president told me to simply reimburse my company for personal use…he owns a Bonanza himself… He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane.  It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay. In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!) As it turns out, we use the plane for business regularly — but personal use is far greater.  Any tax guys out there to answer this one?  My tax accountant hasn’t batted an eye on this one in yet — but maybe he’s wrong? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 Jay, Actually, I don’t use my plane for business  . . . yet. My plane is owned by a Delaware corp. of which I am 1/3 partner (other two partners only fly a total of about 30 hours a year each – sweet deal for me).  Just like you, our "company" bills each of us for hours flown and I cut a check for the hours. However, I will soon my using the plane for business.  Will be flying it down to beach area looking at investment property.  When I do, I will reimburse myself 100% for every hour flown.  $35.00 per hour in my case. I’m not sure what the maximum hourly rate (or $ per mile) that the IRS allows (help anybody?) but I’ll pay myself back 100% until I hear differently.  If the IRS bitches, I’ll simply pay them back plus interest. It’s happened before.  Nothing to worry about as long as I’m attempting to be 100% legal about it (the IRS looks at "intent" when deciding whether or not to assess penalties PLUS interest or just interest). The only thing that may or may not be "kosher" in your case is this: Do you fly your company’s plane on company business enough to justify it being owned and paid for by the company?  I forget what the formula is, but you gotta be using it for business X% of total time.  If not, the IRS is likely to disallow all company expenditures on the plane. Anybody out there illuminate this further? Jim Fisher North Alabama How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane.  We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

Response:

What is the point of the business owning the plane if most of the use is personal and reimbursed to the business? Mike MU-2 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jim, Hypothetical question #1:  Why would it matter how much my company uses the plane on "business", so long as all personal usage is reimbursed? Hypothetical question #2: Assuming the company NEVER uses the plane, how would this be any different than the corporation you have set up for the sole purpose of owning the plane? An aside: In 1998 I was going to set up a separate corp to own the plane, not being sure if I had enough "business" use in my company to justify owning it. My lending institution told me it would be foolish to set up yet ANOTHER corporation, if we already had an "S Corp" up and running.  The bank president told me to simply reimburse my company for personal use…he owns a Bonanza himself… He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane.  It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay. In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!) As it turns out, we use the plane for business regularly — but personal use is far greater.  Any tax guys out there to answer this one?  My tax accountant hasn’t batted an eye on this one in yet — but maybe he’s wrong? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 Jay, Actually, I don’t use my plane for business  . . . yet. My plane is owned by a Delaware corp. of which I am 1/3 partner (other two partners only fly a total of about 30 hours a year each – sweet deal for me).  Just like you, our "company" bills each of us for hours flown and I cut a check for the hours. However, I will soon my using the plane for business.  Will be flying it down to beach area looking at investment property.  When I do, I will reimburse myself 100% for every hour flown.  $35.00 per hour in my case. I’m not sure what the maximum hourly rate (or $ per mile) that the IRS allows (help anybody?) but I’ll pay myself back 100% until I hear differently.  If the IRS bitches, I’ll simply pay them back plus interest. It’s happened before.  Nothing to worry about as long as I’m attempting to be 100% legal about it (the IRS looks at "intent" when deciding whether or not to assess penalties PLUS interest or just interest). The only thing that may or may not be "kosher" in your case is this:  Do you fly your company’s plane on company business enough to justify it being owned and paid for by the company?  I forget what the formula is, but you gotta be using it for business X% of total time.  If not, the IRS is likely to disallow all company expenditures on the plane. Anybody out there illuminate this further? Jim Fisher North Alabama How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane.  We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

Response:

Jim, Hypothetical question #1:  Why would it matter how much my company uses the plane on "business", so long as all personal usage is reimbursed? Hypothetical question #2: Assuming the company NEVER uses the plane, how would this be any different than the corporation you have set up for the sole purpose of owning the plane? An aside: In 1998 I was going to set up a separate corp to own the plane, not being sure if I had enough "business" use in my company to justify owning it. My lending institution told me it would be foolish to set up yet ANOTHER corporation, if we already had an "S Corp" up and running.  The bank president told me to simply reimburse my company for personal use…he owns a Bonanza himself… He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane.  It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay. In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!) As it turns out, we use the plane for business regularly — but personal use is far greater.  Any tax guys out there to answer this one?  My tax accountant hasn’t batted an eye on this one in yet — but maybe he’s wrong? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jay, Actually, I don’t use my plane for business  . . . yet. My plane is owned by a Delaware corp. of which I am 1/3 partner (other two partners only fly a total of about 30 hours a year each – sweet deal for me).  Just like you, our "company" bills each of us for hours flown and I cut a check for the hours. However, I will soon my using the plane for business.  Will be flying it down to beach area looking at investment property.  When I do, I will reimburse myself 100% for every hour flown.  $35.00 per hour in my case. I’m not sure what the maximum hourly rate (or $ per mile) that the IRS allows (help anybody?) but I’ll pay myself back 100% until I hear differently.  If the IRS bitches, I’ll simply pay them back plus interest. It’s happened before.  Nothing to worry about as long as I’m attempting to be 100% legal about it (the IRS looks at "intent" when deciding whether or not to assess penalties PLUS interest or just interest). The only thing that may or may not be "kosher" in your case is this:  Do you fly your company’s plane on company business enough to justify it being owned and paid for by the company?  I forget what the formula is, but you gotta be using it for business X% of total time.  If not, the IRS is likely to disallow all company expenditures on the plane. Anybody out there illuminate this further? Jim Fisher North Alabama How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane.  We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

Response:

Jay, Actually, I don’t use my plane for business  . . . yet. My plane is owned by a Delaware corp. of which I am 1/3 partner (other two partners only fly a total of about 30 hours a year each – sweet deal for me).  Just like you, our "company" bills each of us for hours flown and I cut a check for the hours. However, I will soon my using the plane for business.  Will be flying it down to beach area looking at investment property.  When I do, I will reimburse myself 100% for every hour flown.  $35.00 per hour in my case. I’m not sure what the maximum hourly rate (or $ per mile) that the IRS allows (help anybody?) but I’ll pay myself back 100% until I hear differently.  If the IRS bitches, I’ll simply pay them back plus interest. It’s happened before.  Nothing to worry about as long as I’m attempting to be 100% legal about it (the IRS looks at "intent" when deciding whether or not to assess penalties PLUS interest or just interest). The only thing that may or may not be "kosher" in your case is this:  Do you fly your company’s plane on company business enough to justify it being owned and paid for by the company?  I forget what the formula is, but you gotta be using it for business X% of total time.  If not, the IRS is likely to disallow all company expenditures on the plane. Anybody out there illuminate this further? Jim Fisher North Alabama

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane.  We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

Response:

You can never expense training for a new certificate. You can expense required recurrent training [for example, if your job requires you to fly, then a biennial flight review may be tax deductible], if getting it allows you to keep your present job. Not otherwise.

Untrue. There was an article in last month’s (I think it was last month) Private Pilot magazine where the IRS lost a suite against a Private Pilot who expensed all his instrument training cost to his business. The pilot was able to effectively prove to the judge that the instrument rating was a necessary business expense because, without it, his business would be negatively affected.  I’m sure there’s some place on the net where you can look this case up. As long as you have receipts and can prove that the expense it is necessary to your business, you can write just about anything off. In other words:  If you can prove that a gold plated rubber ducky in your bath tub is necessary for your business to prosper, you can write it off. One more thing:  If you use your plane for more than 80% business, the IRS allows you to write off 100% of the plane – even your personal flying time. Jim Fisher North Alabama – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Lee

Response:

How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane.  We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You can never expense training for a new certificate. You can expense required recurrent training [for example, if your job requires you to fly, then a biennial flight review may be tax deductible], if getting it allows you to keep your present job. Not otherwise. Untrue. There was an article in last month’s (I think it was last month) Private Pilot magazine where the IRS lost a suite against a Private Pilot who expensed all his instrument training cost to his business. The pilot was able to effectively prove to the judge that the instrument rating was a necessary business expense because, without it, his business would be negatively affected.  I’m sure there’s some place on the net where you can look this case up. As long as you have receipts and can prove that the expense it is necessary to your business, you can write just about anything off. In other words:  If you can prove that a gold plated rubber ducky in your bath tub is necessary for your business to prosper, you can write it off. One more thing:  If you use your plane for more than 80% business, the IRS allows you to write off 100% of the plane – even your personal flying time. Jim Fisher North Alabama Lee

Response:

I am currently training to get my private pilots license. I am also an owner of a small business. I have an airport nearby and could benefit from being able to fly to clients who need me to work onsite. Does anyone know if I can expense my training or even the purchase of a plane? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks James Webb Synthetic Light Productions

Response:

You can expense your aircraft the same as you do your car. The rate is different, need to look it up. The real part is that it is often questioned, so you’ll need to demonstrate utility [i.e., that it really is a business property, or is used in business, and to what degree], and keep good records (when, where, for what, etc IAW IRS guidelines). Remember, airplanes (and computers) are "listed" property, and are scrutinized carefully. You cannot expense the entire airplane in one year, you’ll have to depreciate it over more (maybe 7) years. You can never expense training for a new certificate. You can expense required recurrent training [for example, if your job requires you to fly, then a biennial flight review may be tax deductible], if getting it allows you to keep your present job. Not otherwise. Lee

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am currently training to get my private pilots license. I am also an owner of a small business. I have an airport nearby and could benefit from being able to fly to clients who need me to work onsite. Does anyone know if I can expense my training or even the purchase of a plane? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks James Webb Synthetic Light Productions

Response:

Question:

I’m working on a project for a highschool accounting class.  I need to know the difference between the daily workings of a chartered accountant, a certified general accountant and a certified management accountant.  It would be great to get a job description for each. thanks

Response:

Hayley, In Canada the CA, CMA, and CGA accounting designations are somewhat similar but have different focuses in their training.  In practise each of these accountants can work in pretty much any area of accounting (public practise, industry, or government).  In a "perfect" world here is how the designations would differ in the workplace: CA – The focus here would be on the high-end accounting functions such as audits, Corporate tax planning, Chief Financial Officer’s for Public corporations.  The CA designation is the oldest designation and has more prestige attached to it in the eyes of the general public (not necessarily in the eyes of the CGA’s or CMA’s though.  Please note that the CGA and CMA had made great strides to balance this perception in the last decade) CMA – The key focus in the area would be on management accounting in industry.  You would see a CMA as a Controller of a large private corporation providing guidance through financial analysis and costing procedures.  (nowadays you see a great many CMA’s in Public practise) CGA – the is the "generalist" designation. the training has three major areas of concentration in the final stages of obtaining your designation – Government, Industry and public practise.  You could say that the CGA is the Jack/Jane of all trades and master of most.  CGA’s can be found in almost all areas of the accounting world. For all other readers – I have made broad sweeping generalisations here so I will make this comment in order that I don’t get flamed too badly.  All of the accounting designations are overseen by professional organizations that ensure the standards of accounting excellence are maintained.  Each of the designations provide the necessary training and experience for qualified individuals to work in any area of the accounting industry with the utmost of efficiency, integrity and professionalism. Good luck with your project Hayley! Regards, David Spence – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m working on a project for a highschool accounting class.  I need to know the difference between the daily workings of a chartered accountant, a certified general accountant and a certified management accountant.  It would be great to get a job description for each. thanks

Response:

Question:

Has anyone had any experience with this Access product. Thanks — Jay Beckham

Response:

I’m sure this is all very good software – I think it is put out by Cary Prague software. However in the world of accounting software I really recommend staying with the market leaders. On the low cost side – it would be QuickBooks or Peachtree. On the higher cost side – it would be either MAS90, Solomon, Great Plains, Macola or Accpac. Beyond these you may have increased risk that a smaller company stops developing, etc…. Regards, Wayne Has anyone had any experience with this Access product. Thanks

Schulz Consulting http://www.s-consult.com MAS 90 accounting software consultants since 1986 860-295-9271 Keywords: MAS90 , Connecticut, CT, Accounting, Support

Response:

Hi Wayne Thanks for the response. In most circumstances I would agree with you. Also for most people your advice is well taken. However, I work in Access and I see this as an opportunity to take some established software and then change it to suit my clients better than I could expect with most packaged and unchangeable programs such as Quick Books and Peachtree. So I am still interested in hearing from anyone that has used any of Cary Prague products.  I have worked some with the demo and mixed opinions at this moment. Thanks James Beckham

Response:

I can’t speak about Cary Prague specifically. They do appear to be a long time player in the MS Access based accounting software world. Most businesses are better advised to avoid customization where possible and to stay with the market leaders. Benefit: Less headaches, regular software updates, more consultants who will support the product (few consultants are overjoyed to pick up someone elses custom software project). The growth days for customizing software packages like SBT are all but over imho. The only companies I see doing this are those that truly cannot get a solution elsewhere. Regards, Wayne Schulz Consulting http://www.s-consult.com MAS 90 accounting software consultants since 1986 860-295-9271 Keywords: MAS90 , Connecticut, CT, Accounting, Support

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Wayne Thanks for the response. In most circumstances I would agree with you. Also for most people your advice is well taken. However, I work in Access and I see this as an opportunity to take some established software and then change it to suit my clients better than I could expect with most packaged and unchangeable programs such as Quick Books and Peachtree. So I am still interested in hearing from anyone that has used any of Cary Prague products.  I have worked some with the demo and mixed opinions at this moment. Thanks James Beckham

I too am an Access developer, specializing in accounting type systems. I have been able to assist several businesses simplify their operations via an Access based system. While I do agree that these off-the-shelf packages are lower in cost, it is hard to get them to do specialized activities many small businesses have. Instead of fitting every business to 2 software packages, why not have a software system that can be easily modified for the business. Before this subject gets touchy, my intent here is not put down Quick Books and Peach Tree since I feel these packages do have their benefits over Access systems. However, I also feel that Access based systems have benefits over these apps and that each person should closly weigh the pros and cons of each system in leiu of depending on generalizations about each type of system. Access based systems are not like traditional custom programs that can only be understood by the developer. Access makes it easy to create custom forms, reports as well as add additional data to be stored. As far a staying with standardized software, Access is a standard software and finding someoneto create/modify an Access application is as easy as opening up the yellow pages or contacting Microsoft to recommend a certified developer in your area.  Try doing this with Peach Tree or Quick Books. The one suggestion that I do make is to ensure that you have the files that you can modify yourself. If you do not have these then you are stuck with that developer. Personally, I provide these files to my clients but have them sign an agreement that prevents them legally using the package for other businesses or any part of the system as part of a system that they decide to market themselves. Just another opinion… Bob Munoz            CreaTech Solutions     Custom Business Software Systems,          Solutions and Services   Web: http://www.themetro.com/createch

Response:

Question:

I would be interested in knowing what experiences people have had using this software.  My initial/recent experience has not been positive and I would like to know if others are having similar problems/frustrations. Thank you.

Response:

I would be interested in knowing what experiences people have had using this software.  My initial/recent experience has not been positive and I would like to know if others are having similar problems/frustrations. Thank you.

  Two questions: 1.  Was the ACCPAC-certified Qualified Installer (QI) you used adequately experienced and knowledgable? 2.  Have you visited http://www.accpaconline.com? Regards, Jon

Response:

I would be interested in knowing what experiences people have had using this software.  My initial/recent experience has not been positive and I would like to know if others are having similar problems/frustrations. Thank you.

was ACCPAC bought by Computer Associates?   http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/issues/1613/pcmg0087.htm

Response:

I am an accounting system consultant specializing in Accpac Plus (DOS product) and Accpac for Windows.  Until version  3.0 of Accpac for Windows came out (late October – early November of last year), there was a number of bugs in the product.  However, virtually all of them got resolved in the latest version.  So, if you still use version 2.0, upgrade to 3.0 as soon as you can.  If you use version 3.0, make sure you install the latest patches to the modules you are using (they are available on the Web). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would be interested in knowing what experiences people have had using this software.  My initial/recent experience has not been positive and I would like to know if others are having similar problems/frustrations. Thank you.

Response: