Filed a complaint with the IRS today... - Page 4

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Filed a complaint with the IRS today... (Page 4 of 7)

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:17:08 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

I think it is wrong to withhold information and evidence that would allow justice to happen. I could never do work that left me personally feeling unethical. Does that cause you some kind of difficulty?

Nope, I sleep like a baby.

"Justice" can take many forms.

I know, we don't have much of it in this country.

Throw out our system, do you think the ethical thing to do if you discover, through whatever means, that someone is a murderer, is to report it, or to help them hide that evidence?

Cheating the Federal government is morally equivalent to murder?

wtturn used the example of an attorney knowing where the murder weapon is. RIF

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:17:27 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Exactly. The OP does good in reporting the company. The IRS busted a guy that owned many Jackson Hewitt stores. There was a widespread practice of picking up dependents, fake biz deductions, etc. That kind of activity is sickening. People flock to these stores in search of a huge refund. Preparers know how to structure a return to get it done. It's a serious problem. My SIL wanted me to prep her return. She thought she could claim my MIL. I said, "you can't you don't provide greater than 50% of her support." She went to HR Block. Guess what? They told her should claim my MIL. She let them prep her return. What especially burned my ass was the way she acted when she told me that they said it was ok. I manage a big team of CPAs, EAs, and even tax attorneys. I KNOW the farging law. She thinks some flunky in a strip center tax store knows more than I do.[/div]

Well... they gave her the answer she wanted to hear. Therefore, that must be the right answer.

Human nature.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:18:34 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

I think it is wrong to withhold information and evidence that would allow justice to happen. I could never do work that left me personally feeling unethical. Does that cause you some kind of difficulty?

Nope, I sleep like a baby.

"Justice" can take many forms.

I know, we don't have much of it in this country.

Throw out our system, do you think the ethical thing to do if you discover, through whatever means, that someone is a murderer, is to report it, or to help them hide that evidence?

Cheating the Federal government is morally equivalent to murder?

wtturn used the example of an attorney knowing where the murder weapon is. RIF

Ain't nobody got time for 'dat.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:18:53 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You are not fully apprised of the tenets of tax law and the practice thereof. It might seem rational to you for the OP to tell the IRS who the taxpayer is that got all dat murney. Maybe you don't realize he said he actually told the IRS who the taxpayer was. That's a big no-no. Reporting the company is acceptable. Telling on your own client is verboten.

I understand that, I was asking about the system as it exists. Then I explained my personal view, that wrong-doing should be reported, regardless of the relationship between two people.

I gotcha. It seems counter-intuitive, I know. I know of many people that cheat the IRS. I don't prepare their returns anymore. I am not going to report them.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:19:05 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

I think it is wrong to withhold information and evidence that would allow justice to happen. I could never do work that left me personally feeling unethical. Does that cause you some kind of difficulty?

Nope, I sleep like a baby.

"Justice" can take many forms.

I know, we don't have much of it in this country.

Throw out our system, do you think the ethical thing to do if you discover, through whatever means, that someone is a murderer, is to report it, or to help them hide that evidence?

It depends on if you are under a privileged compact with that person. In that case it would be manifestly UNjust to betray the trust and compact with that person.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:20:27 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

I think it is wrong to withhold information and evidence that would allow justice to happen. I could never do work that left me personally feeling unethical. Does that cause you some kind of difficulty?

Nope, I sleep like a baby.

"Justice" can take many forms.

As do I

"Justice" is very different depending on if you look at a community the agrees with it, or an inactive community that should disdain the said "justice"

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:24:30 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You are not fully apprised of the tenets of tax law and the practice thereof. It might seem rational to you for the OP to tell the IRS who the taxpayer is that got all dat murney. Maybe you don't realize he said he actually told the IRS who the taxpayer was. That's a big no-no. Reporting the company is acceptable. Telling on your own client is verboten.

I understand that, I was asking about the system as it exists. Then I explained my personal view, that wrong-doing should be reported, regardless of the relationship between two people.

What's "wrong-doing"? Is is arbitrary, whatever the second party thinks is wrong? Is it what the government says is wrong?

Would you squeal on a parent, sibling, or close friend?

Your paradigm seems not just at all.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:27:16 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Ain't nobody got time for 'dat.

AMERICA!!!

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:28:35 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

I think it is wrong to withhold information and evidence that would allow justice to happen. I could never do work that left me personally feeling unethical. Does that cause you some kind of difficulty?

Nope, I sleep like a baby.

"Justice" can take many forms.

I know, we don't have much of it in this country.

Throw out our system, do you think the ethical thing to do if you discover, through whatever means, that someone is a murderer, is to report it, or to help them hide that evidence?

It depends on if you are under a privileged compact with that person. In that case it would be manifestly UNjust to betray the trust and compact with that person.

Why should a murderer have the right to a privileged compact? I'm not talking about our current system, just trying to grasp the logic behind it. How is justice fulfilled by forcing someone to aid a wrongdoer, rather than assist in bringing the wrongdoer to justice?

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:28:38 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

CPAs are ethically required to NOT report fraud by their clients?

I didn't report fraud by a client. I reported another employee's lack of due diligence. The client did the right thing. The tax preparer did not do their job correctly.

Medicare's OIG works in a similar matter in the healthcare world. The patient doesn't get reported to avoid a HIPAA violation, it's the lab/doctor/hospital/etc. Medicare then requests details to substantiate the facts.

If you don't make the disclosure or correction before the government find it, the consequences are much more severe, especially if someone however innocent was aware of the mistake.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:29:46 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I wasn't really talking about your situation, I would just imagine the right thing to do if you discovered fraud would be to report it. I must just be weird that way.

When attorneys find out their clients are actually guilty, they don't run to the cops and tell them where the murder weapon is.

That's unethical.

Oh, I'm sure it's considered unethical... but I certainly don't agree with that idea of 'ethics'.

Thank God you're not a fucking attorney.

I think it is wrong to withhold information and evidence that would allow justice to happen. I could never do work that left me personally feeling unethical. Does that cause you some kind of difficulty?

You are not fully apprised of the tenets of tax law and the practice thereof. It might seem rational to you for the OP to tell the IRS who the taxpayer is that got all dat murney. Maybe you don't realize he said he actually told the IRS who the taxpayer was. That's a big no-no. Reporting the company is acceptable. Telling on your own client is verboten.

Again, I reported the company, not the client. As part of the process, I was asked for the client's name and SSN, so that the IRS knew where to look. I know enough to not go ratting out clients. I also know enough to know that I am required to fully comply with IRS requests.

From Circular 230:

§ 10.20 Information to be furnished.
(a) To the Internal Revenue Service.
(1) A practitioner must, on a proper and lawful
request by a duly authorized officer or employee
of the Internal Revenue Service, promptly submit
records or information in any matter before the
Internal Revenue Service unless the practitioner
believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that
the records or information are privileged

A client's name and social security number are not privileged. So, when the IRS asked me for those two pieces of information, I am required to give them the information.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:29:54 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You are not fully apprised of the tenets of tax law and the practice thereof. It might seem rational to you for the OP to tell the IRS who the taxpayer is that got all dat murney. Maybe you don't realize he said he actually told the IRS who the taxpayer was. That's a big no-no. Reporting the company is acceptable. Telling on your own client is verboten.

I understand that, I was asking about the system as it exists. Then I explained my personal view, that wrong-doing should be reported, regardless of the relationship between two people.

What's "wrong-doing"? Is is arbitrary, whatever the second party thinks is wrong? Is it what the government says is wrong?

Would you squeal on a parent, sibling, or close friend?

Your paradigm seems not just at all.

Why does my paradigm seem unjust?

wrong-doing can most easily be based off of doing harm to others. And yes, I would 'squeal' on a parent, sibling, or close friend.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:31:33 PM EDT

[#13]

Douche move IMO

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:32:31 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Why should a murderer have the right to a privileged compact? I'm not talking about our current system, just trying to grasp the logic behind it. How is justice fulfilled by forcing someone to aid a wrongdoer, rather than assist in bringing the wrongdoer to justice?

Because no one is a murderer until they're convicted.

Hence our whole legal system.

Otherwise, why not bring back impromptu lynchings? You be okay with that?

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:35:39 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Why should a murderer have the right to a privileged compact? I'm not talking about our current system, just trying to grasp the logic behind it. How is justice fulfilled by forcing someone to aid a wrongdoer, rather than assist in bringing the wrongdoer to justice?

Because no one is a murderer until they're convicted.

Hence our whole legal system.

Otherwise, why not bring back impromptu lynchings? You be okay with that?

Ok, there's a disconnect in our thinking. The moment you kill an innocent person, you become a murderer to me. Not the moment you become convicted. Similarly, if someone is incorrectly convicted of murder, that doesn't make them a murderer.

Impromptu lynchings? I didn't say anything that would indicate that. I said that if anyone has information or evidence, I think they would be morally required to submit that information or evidence.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:35:40 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

What's "wrong-doing"? Is is arbitrary, whatever the second party thinks is wrong? Is it what the government says is wrong?

Would you squeal on a parent, sibling, or close friend?

Your paradigm seems not just at all.

Why does my paradigm seem unjust?

wrong-doing can most easily be based off of doing harm to others. And yes, I would 'squeal' on a parent, sibling, or close friend.

Because it's arbitrary and overly-simple.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:36:52 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

What's "wrong-doing"? Is is arbitrary, whatever the second party thinks is wrong? Is it what the government says is wrong?

Would you squeal on a parent, sibling, or close friend?

Your paradigm seems not just at all.

Why does my paradigm seem unjust?

wrong-doing can most easily be based off of doing harm to others. And yes, I would 'squeal' on a parent, sibling, or close friend.

Because it's arbitrary and overly-simple.

Ok, you haven't really substantiated that, but that's fine. I think a system that forces someone who could bring another to justice to refrain from doing so is unjust.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:39:36 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Jesus

So much for mind your own business.

Some poor bastards life is about to be turned upside down.

And the OP better get his resume together. Not saying he's wrong to stand on principle, but that whistleblowing is going to have consequences.

First thing that came to my mind too.

Oh sure, they won't say it's for this, but it'll be made clear to him that he needs to go & that'll be all she wrote..

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:40:32 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Why should a murderer have the right to a privileged compact? I'm not talking about our current system, just trying to grasp the logic behind it. How is justice fulfilled by forcing someone to aid a wrongdoer, rather than assist in bringing the wrongdoer to justice?

Because no one is a murderer until they're convicted.

Hence our whole legal system.

Otherwise, why not bring back impromptu lynchings? You be okay with that?

Ok, there's a disconnect in our thinking. The moment you kill an innocent person, you become a murderer to me. Not the moment you become convicted. Similarly, if someone is incorrectly convicted of murder, that doesn't make them a murderer.

Impromptu lynchings? I didn't say anything that would indicate that. I said that if anyone has information or evidence, I think they would be morally required to submit that information or evidence.

Who's to say a person is innocent or not innocent? An individual, according to their own reckoning, or a jury according to laws?

Yes you did. Why have laws if we are to govern ourselves by our own feelings of right and wrong? People disagree on right and wrong every day.

idk what to tell you, if attorneys are compelled to produce incriminatory evidence against a client, then people are not really entitled to competent representation, and then why even bother with trial? hence the lynching comment.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:42:21 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Ok, you haven't really substantiated that, but that's fine. I think a system that forces someone who could bring another to justice to refrain from doing so is unjust.

That's fine. But I'll reiterate, I thank God you're not an attorney.

And I hope you know you can never be one.

I expect that if you're ever the subject of a prosecution, you'll be glad your lawyer cannot ethically disclose any of your privileged communication, allowing total freedom to aid in your own defense, knowing that you don't have to hide anything.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:45:25 PM EDT

[#21]

Dude, you went to them first. You told them about some practices, then you mentioned to the a certain client. Go ahead and quote the circ about giving them information. You should NEVER have told the IRS about some incorrect information in someone's return and then given them the name of that person. You are obligated to tell them certain information when they've started an investigation concerning your client, but you are not supposed to go telling the IRS about a certain client of your own volition. Of course they asked the name of the person. Do you know the IRS issued a memorandum that advises an IRS employee to immediately stop speaking with a preparer that reveals a client's information to them without the client's consent?

You can be sued by the customer. The IRS would love for you to tell, but if it goes to court, you could get screwed. Your quote of that passage in the Circ. reveals you lack of proper practice rules. You'll be lucky to get out of this unscathed.

Quoted:

Quoted:

I wasn't really talking about your situation, I would just imagine the right thing to do if you discovered fraud would be to report it. I must just be weird that way.

When attorneys find out their clients are actually guilty, they don't run to the cops and tell them where the murder weapon is.

That's unethical.

Oh, I'm sure it's considered unethical... but I certainly don't agree with that idea of 'ethics'.

Thank God you're not a fucking attorney.

I think it is wrong to withhold information and evidence that would allow justice to happen. I could never do work that left me personally feeling unethical. Does that cause you some kind of difficulty?

You are not fully apprised of the tenets of tax law and the practice thereof. It might seem rational to you for the OP to tell the IRS who the taxpayer is that got all dat murney. Maybe you don't realize he said he actually told the IRS who the taxpayer was. That's a big no-no. Reporting the company is acceptable. Telling on your own client is verboten.

Again, I reported the company, not the client. As part of the process, I was asked for the client's name and SSN, so that the IRS knew where to look. I know enough to not go ratting out clients. I also know enough to know that I am required to fully comply with IRS requests.

From Circular 230:

§ 10.20 Information to be furnished.
(a) To the Internal Revenue Service.
(1) A practitioner must, on a proper and lawful
request by a duly authorized officer or employee
of the Internal Revenue Service, promptly submit
records or information in any matter before the
Internal Revenue Service unless the practitioner
believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that
the records or information are privileged

A client's name and social security number are not privileged. So, when the IRS asked me for those two pieces of information, I am required to give them the information.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:46:40 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Why should a murderer have the right to a privileged compact? I'm not talking about our current system, just trying to grasp the logic behind it. How is justice fulfilled by forcing someone to aid a wrongdoer, rather than assist in bringing the wrongdoer to justice?

Because no one is a murderer until they're convicted.

Hence our whole legal system.

Otherwise, why not bring back impromptu lynchings? You be okay with that?

Ok, there's a disconnect in our thinking. The moment you kill an innocent person, you become a murderer to me. Not the moment you become convicted. Similarly, if someone is incorrectly convicted of murder, that doesn't make them a murderer.

Impromptu lynchings? I didn't say anything that would indicate that. I said that if anyone has information or evidence, I think they would be morally required to submit that information or evidence.

Who's to say a person is innocent or not innocent? An individual, according to their own reckoning, or a jury according to laws?

Yes you did. Why have laws if we are to govern ourselves by our own feelings of right and wrong? People disagree on right and wrong every day.

idk what to tell you, if attorneys are compelled to produce incriminatory evidence against a client, then people are not really entitled to competent representation, and then why even bother with trial? hence the lynching comment.

No person can dictate fact. A jury cannot dictate fact. An individual cannot dictate fact. Fact is fact.

If you kill someone unjustly, then you killed them unjustly. Whether or not a jury says 'Yes he did' or 'No he didn't' doesn't change the fact that you did.

No, I didn't. I didn't say we don't need laws.

If a murderer needs a lawyer to defend him, then he shouldn't tell the lawyer where the murder weapon is(again, this is what I would envision as the most just system). There would still be a trial, and the lawyer would defend the murderer to the best of the murderer's story, but I don't think justice is served when an attorney who knows his client is guilty and knows where the proof is tries to hide it. Your extension of what I have said to lawless lynchings is unfounded.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:48:23 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ok, you haven't really substantiated that, but that's fine. I think a system that forces someone who could bring another to justice to refrain from doing so is unjust.

That's fine. But I'll reiterate, I thank God you're not an attorney.

And I hope you know you can never be one.

I expect that if you're ever the subject of a prosecution, you'll be glad your lawyer cannot ethically disclose any of your privileged communication, allowing total freedom to aid in your own defense, knowing that you don't have to hide anything.

I don't want to be an attorney. If I wanted to be one, I could be one, but I don't want to be one, so what are we even talking about?

If I've done something wrong, then I should pay the price for doing so. If not, then there would be no guilt for my attorney to pass on.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:48:41 PM EDT

[#24]

lol, OP, this will SURELY solve your getting-a-job problem! Ha!

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:49:26 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

No person can dictate fact. A jury cannot dictate fact. An individual cannot dictate fact. Fact is fact.

If you kill someone unjustly, then you killed them unjustly. Whether or not a jury says 'Yes he did' or 'No he didn't' doesn't change the fact that you did.

No, I didn't. I didn't say we don't need laws.

If a murderer needs a lawyer to defend him, then he shouldn't tell the lawyer where the murder weapon is(again, this is what I would envision as the most just system). There would still be a trial, and the lawyer would defend the murderer to the best of the murderer's story, but I don't think justice is served when an attorney who knows his client is guilty and knows where the proof is tries to hide it. Your extension of what I have said to lawless lynchings is unfounded.

Fact is fact, but fact is always subject to interpretation and the application of law to the fact.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:51:34 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
lol, OP, this will SURELY solve your getting-a-job problem! Ha!

I hear the IRS is hiring 10,000 new agents.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:52:28 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No person can dictate fact. A jury cannot dictate fact. An individual cannot dictate fact. Fact is fact.

If you kill someone unjustly, then you killed them unjustly. Whether or not a jury says 'Yes he did' or 'No he didn't' doesn't change the fact that you did.

No, I didn't. I didn't say we don't need laws.

If a murderer needs a lawyer to defend him, then he shouldn't tell the lawyer where the murder weapon is(again, this is what I would envision as the most just system). There would still be a trial, and the lawyer would defend the murderer to the best of the murderer's story, but I don't think justice is served when an attorney who knows his client is guilty and knows where the proof is tries to hide it. Your extension of what I have said to lawless lynchings is unfounded.

Fact is fact, but fact is always subject to interpretation and the application of law to the fact.

I agree with the brick wall. Interpretation and application of law can't change fact.

If the fact is that Mr. Johnson used a knife to kill Mr. Jones, and Mr. Johnson told me where the knife is, then assuming it's true, the fact is I know where the murder weapon is. No interpretation or application of law can change that.

If I know Mr. Johnson to be a murderer and where the proof is, then true justice isn't served by me helping him to avoid being punished for what he factually did.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:52:28 PM EDT

[#28]

Double-Tap-Kegger

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:54:27 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I wasn't really talking about your situation, I would just imagine the right thing to do if you discovered fraud would be to report it. I must just be weird that way.

When attorneys find out their clients are actually guilty, they don't run to the cops and tell them where the murder weapon is.

That's unethical.

Oh, I'm sure it's considered unethical... but I certainly don't agree with that idea of 'ethics'.

Thank God you're not a fucking attorney.

I think it is wrong to withhold information and evidence that would allow justice to happen. I could never do work that left me personally feeling unethical. Does that cause you some kind of difficulty?

You are not fully apprised of the tenets of tax law and the practice thereof. It might seem rational to you for the OP to tell the IRS who the taxpayer is that got all dat murney. Maybe you don't realize he said he actually told the IRS who the taxpayer was. That's a big no-no. Reporting the company is acceptable. Telling on your own client is verboten.

Again, I reported the company, not the client. As part of the process, I was asked for the client's name and SSN, so that the IRS knew where to look. I know enough to not go ratting out clients. I also know enough to know that I am required to fully comply with IRS requests.

From Circular 230:

§ 10.20 Information to be furnished.
(a) To the Internal Revenue Service.
(1) A practitioner must, on a proper and lawful
request by a duly authorized officer or employee
of the Internal Revenue Service, promptly submit
records or information in any matter before the
Internal Revenue Service unless the practitioner
believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that
the records or information are privileged

A client's name and social security number are not privileged. So, when the IRS asked me for those two pieces of information, I am required to give them the information.

Counselor, the privileged information includes the "fraudulent" entries in his tax returns from prior years that you told the IRS about. Geez, the guy gets an accounting degree and goes to work for HR block or some other storefront center and thinks he is a whiz at tax law. Look, I hope you come out ok. But if you tell the IRS about all these issues on some guy's return, then tell the name of that guy, you've committed an ethical error. The IRS is supposed to inform the taxpayer about what has transpired AND tell him that they no longer consider YOU to be his representative. That's how the customer can then know that YOU told the IRS about things on HIS return. And then, HIS lawyer can put his big ol ghetto goblin ding dong in your bum bum.

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:54:34 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
lol, OP, this will SURELY solve your getting-a-job problem! Ha!

I hear the IRS is hiring 10,000 new agents.

Hell, apparently he's already working for them for free!

Posted: 2/2/2013 9:59:37 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
"through no real fault of his own"

"So, I dropped a dime to the IRS"

1) He's covered by the accuracy guarantee. Therefore, he'll continue being a card-carrying member of the FSA. He just won't get as much free shit as he's gotten in the past.

2) He put his signature on it, thereby stating that he read it and certifies that everything is correct. (It's not like a Form 1040 doesn't have the relationship of the dependent hidden, it's only right there on the front page.)

3) The fucking country is broke, with taxpayer's money being wasted on shit like this. How many such instances should we tolerate? Are you ok with someone taking $40,000 to which they aren't entitled? Are you ok with your tax rates going up so the government can keep giving away money to people who aren't even legally entitled to it?[/

Stop it, you're cracking me up.

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:02:20 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
"through no real fault of his own"

"So, I dropped a dime to the IRS"

1) He's covered by the accuracy guarantee. Therefore, he'll continue being a card-carrying member of the FSA. He just won't get as much free shit as he's gotten in the past.

2) He put his signature on it, thereby stating that he read it and certifies that everything is correct. (It's not like a Form 1040 doesn't have the relationship of the dependent hidden, it's only right there on the front page.)

3) The fucking country is broke, with taxpayer's money being wasted on shit like this. How many such instances should we tolerate? Are you ok with someone taking $40,000 to which they aren't entitled? Are you ok with your tax rates going up so the government can keep giving away money to people who aren't even legally entitled to it?[/

Stop it, you're cracking me up.

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:10:34 PM EDT

[#33]

Good Job OP.......Army Values

The sad part of this thread is finding out ArfCom has "Stop Snitchin' " FSA gangmembers in here

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:18:34 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That's fucking boss, man.

Good work.

Thanks.

Being a former Army NCO, my integrity is worth a hell of a lot more than the $10 an hour I get paid to do taxes for ghetto goblins.

Naw, you done good. Why shouldn't everybody be held to the same standards as I am? If I lie on my returns, and get cracked nobody will feel a damn bit sorry for me. rightfully so.

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:19:31 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Hopefully your company has some sort of "We fucked your shit up" policy and the dude doesn't get totally wrecked when the IRS comes knocking

Why shouldn't he get wrecked? He signed the damn returns.

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:20:27 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Counselor, the privileged information includes the "fraudulent" entries in his tax returns from prior years that you told the IRS about. Geez, the guy gets an accounting degree and goes to work for HR block or some other storefront center and thinks he is a whiz at tax law. Look, I hope you come out ok. But if you tell the IRS about all these issues on some guy's return, then tell the name of that guy, you've committed an ethical error. The IRS is supposed to inform the taxpayer about what has transpired AND tell him that they no longer consider YOU to be his representative. That's how the customer can then know that YOU told the IRS about things on HIS return. And then, HIS lawyer can put his big ol ghetto goblin ding dong in your bum bum.

OP -- I started out in life as an accountant and, much like you, was not comfortable with some of the things I had to (ethically) do. Therefore I left the profession, even though I had a wife, small kids and a mortgage.

Maybe you should be looking for another line of work, since this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:40:12 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Good Job OP.......Army Values

The sad part of this thread is finding out ArfCom has "Stop Snitchin' " FSA gangmembers in here

No, the sad part is finding out that arfcom has the type of people who would rat you out for say having a flash hider on your rifle, and pat themselves on the back for doing the moral and ethical thing.

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:42:36 PM EDT

[#38]

Good job OP. Much respect from one NCO to another.

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:49:11 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Counselor, the privileged information includes the "fraudulent" entries in his tax returns from prior years that you told the IRS about. Geez, the guy gets an accounting degree and goes to work for HR block or some other storefront center and thinks he is a whiz at tax law. Look, I hope you come out ok. But if you tell the IRS about all these issues on some guy's return, then tell the name of that guy, you've committed an ethical error. The IRS is supposed to inform the taxpayer about what has transpired AND tell him that they no longer consider YOU to be his representative. That's how the customer can then know that YOU told the IRS about things on HIS return. And then, HIS lawyer can put his big ol ghetto goblin ding dong in your bum bum.

LOL, and if there's anything 'ghetto goblins' are good at sniffing out, it's free money. OP better lawyer up, because I get a feeling he's about to have a nasty run-in with a Sharpton-esque attorney who's gonna take him to the woodshed...

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:51:54 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Wait, so the client won't have to pay the refunds back just the tax prep company? If so, I am going to stop doing my taxes and have some yob do them so I can be off the hook.

Yes, I quoted myself. I would really like an answer before I do my taxes though.

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:53:03 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Good Job OP.......Army Values

The sad part of this thread is finding out ArfCom has "Stop Snitchin' " FSA gangmembers in here

You're just now finding out that many on ARFCOM don't support the government's goals? Haven't you seen all of the threads about not talking to the police? You've been here since 2002 and have over 4,000 posts, certainly this isn't really news to you.

As for the case at hand, I find it hard to work up a lot of sympathy that the government that wants to take my guns had someone take $40,000 from them. As a rule I don't condone illegal activity, which includes falsifying tax returns. However, I'm certainly not sitting here being sad that someone did it. Even if the client spent that money on crack and prostitutes I imagine that he still put it to better use than the federal government would have.

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:55:07 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Good Job OP.......Army Values

The sad part of this thread is finding out ArfCom has "Stop Snitchin' " FSA gangmembers in here

You're just now finding out that many on ARFCOM don't support the government's goals? Haven't you seen all of the threads about not talking to the police? You've been here since 2002 and have over 4,000 posts, certainly this isn't really news to you.

As for the case at hand, I find it hard to work up a lot of sympathy that the government that wants to take my guns had someone take $40,000 from them. As a rule I don't condone illegal activity, which includes falsifying tax returns. However, I'm certainly not sitting here being sad that someone did it. Even if the client spent that money on crack and prostitutes I imagine that he still put it to better use than the federal government would have.

What do you mean "even if?" Your tone implies crack / prostitutes to be a poor investment portfolio...

Posted: 2/2/2013 10:56:45 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Good Job OP.......Army Values

The sad part of this thread is finding out ArfCom has "Stop Snitchin' " FSA gangmembers in here

You're just now finding out that many on ARFCOM don't support the government's goals? Haven't you seen all of the threads about not talking to the police? You've been here since 2002 and have over 4,000 posts, certainly this isn't really news to you.

As for the case at hand, I find it hard to work up a lot of sympathy that the government that wants to take my guns had someone take $40,000 from them. As a rule I don't condone illegal activity, which includes falsifying tax returns. However, I'm certainly not sitting here being sad that someone did it. Even if the client spent that money on crack and prostitutes I imagine that he still put it to better use than the federal government would have.

Jackpot! Stuffing it in a wood chipper would be a better use than the fed gov.

Posted: 2/2/2013 11:09:50 PM EDT

[#44]

A whole lot of WTF in this thread, OP.

Posted: 2/2/2013 11:31:24 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
After thinking this over, I think the OP did the right thing. That's about 8 years worth of returns for me that went into his client's pocket...

...and we wonder why we're in the mess we're in.

+1

Posted: 2/3/2013 6:50:29 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

After thinking this over, I think the OP did the right thing. That's about 8 years worth of returns for me that went into his client's pocket...

...and we wonder why we're in the mess we're in.

I agree. With the ethics and morals being thrown around in here its a wonder our country isnt fucked even more than it is. Most of the people do not have a problem with someone stealing on their return. Makes me wonder how many of them would have no problem stealing from their employer, hometown, or county. If enough people steal like this it snowballs and creates a larger problem.

This country has lost it's moral compass and that is the main reason I know this country is fucked and getting closer and closer to the bottom of the toilet bowl.

Posted: 2/3/2013 7:01:46 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
While I have disdain for the IRS, I think you did the right thing. Even if you looked the other way, your name is on the return so now you would have to worry for the rest of your life if the IRS finds it.

This.

Posted: 2/3/2013 7:03:23 AM EDT

[#48]

Thank you for doing the right thing with my tax dollars. I pay a lot of tax due to my current situation. I hate to see it wasted. You, sir, just saved the taxpayer a year of my taxes.

Posted: 2/3/2013 7:04:15 AM EDT

[#49]

OP, at the end of the day, you can (hopefully) sleep well with a clear conscience, knowing that you did the right thing. It's nice to know that some people in this world still have a bit of integrity, as most in this thread have clearly shown that they don't. Granted, nobody likes the IRS, but you did exactly what you were being paid to do!

I'm probably a bit biased, though, as an accounting major who is going into audit in the fall.

Posted: 2/3/2013 7:04:30 AM EDT

[#50]

Twenty seven pages, 19 locks and 21 perma bans.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Filed a complaint with the IRS today... (Page 4 of 7)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us