| December 29, 2009
0 Comments

[UPDATE (December 29, 2009): the State has begun the process of selecting an administrator for the rebate program described in the post.] December 28's issued Comptroller Office of agency request for proposals (RFP) "targeted to companies that can act as implementation contractor" for the appliance rebate program. [Interested companies, such a contractor should the link (current December 29, 2009) to the page "energy efficiency appliance rebate program for stimulus grant program" Comptroller's Web site, the window on Government followed.]

Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of public accounts, recently announced the, that Texas $23 million in federal stimulus funds discount program will use after a mail-in for consumers, the specific energy-efficient household appliances to buy a 10-day period April of next year. Here is the Comptroller press release announcing the program. Comptroller explained that the program be in the spring coincide with earth day, retailers time was up on appliances give State, a provider to manage discounts and enough time, consumers details offer the discount program. The press release also contains a link for a more detailed explanation of the program from the Agency State energy conservation Office.

Photo credit: © iStockphoto.com Sklemin Kirill

Total discounts seem pretty generous although some amounts purchased depending on the appliance type and energy efficiency of the model vary, such as $255-$ 640 for a water heater. Also, there are some limitations. For example, the discounts applies only to purchases of certified "Energy Star" refrigerators, freezers, room air conditioners, central air conditioners, heat pumps, water heaters, clothes washers and dishwashers. What's more, has the new units that replace same kind of old appliance works.

To the program even more attractive, recycling to consumers who buy an eligible appliance and recycling your old enter into a separate $75 discount.

So it is fund the federal stimulus good news for Texas consumers, the shiny new household appliances didn't over the holidays get. You have just to keep your old energy hogs, work for a few months until you recycled and replaced with energy-efficient and discount eligible models.

Finally, for consumers in the hope of "double dip", it does not appear that the April discount program with the energy star amounting to holiday in May that overlap where many of the same types of household appliances (the counterpart to 2008 which was sales tax holiday discussed in a previous post on this Web site labeled "Texas sales and use tax: Comptroller weekend has provided more details about the new sales tax holiday on Memorial Day for certain energy efficient products").

Home > Texas franchise tax > Texas' community banks pay less tax of franchise at the beginning of next year >, Texas tax reform > Texas' community banks pay less tax of franchise at the beginning of next year > | June 22nd, 2009
0 Comments

House Bill 4611, effective offers next year, an important advantage to small and medium-sized companies Texas banks - banks - often called Community under the revised franchise tax or "Margin Tax." In the last days of before recently ended legislative session enables credit institutions the Bill to pass, (i.e. banks), the gross proceeds from the sale of certain securities as part of their gross revenue for allocation of costs (instead of only the net proceeds) to treat purposes. Whether large or net income from securities, sales can be counted provision a Bank (or any other taxpayer) costs percentage is significant. This is because among subsection (e)(25) of the Comptroller of public accounts article 3.591 ("margin: breakdown"), proceeds from the sale of securities is at the location of the billing program is relative and, more importantly, "If securities are sold through an Exchange and the buyer can not be identified, then 7.9% of the revenue is a Texas entrance".

In other words, 92.1% of the revenue from the typical sale of securities on the stock exchange is outside of Texas, related so it is almost always advantageous to gross revenue, rather than only net profit from such a taxpayer sale distribution percentage calculation can include.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/public domain

House Bill 4611 is designed to resolve a problem by the Comptroller's interpretation of subsection (f) the tax code section 171.106 ("breakdown of margin to a State") arose. In subsection (e)(16) of rule 3.591 and explanations as the 2008 memorandum as document No. 200809240L agency STAR indexed database, how treated a Bank Securities for federal income tax purposes - and regardless of how it categorized those securities for purposes of financial reporting - determines whether gross or net proceeds from the sale of these securities in gross revenue sharing formula could be counted. The legislature's Bill analysis of language which has been declared the final (registered) version of the invoice;

[T] he comptroller's Office offers section 171.106(f) for securities and loans only applies to the a taxable entity dutifully or treatment under section 475(a)(1), internal revenue code or accounts for securities and loans under section 471, internal revenue code.

The Comptroller of the political position on section 171.106(f) is satisfiable trade easiest components of these companies from the large Multistate banks, due to the large security.  This large Multistate banks with Security Broker have all necessary procedures and guidelines to comply with section 475(a)(1) divisions, internal code needed revenue.

The Comptroller of the political position on section 171.106(f) will generate considerable administrative burden and potential regulatory issues for small to medium-sized banks, only shops in Texas, commonly recognized State community banks. These banks have usually not large trading security components, but sell securities and loans under its normal course of business. These banks with implementing costly and extensive management processes and policies to meet the comptroller's position face or suffer significantly higher franchise tax burdens (as a percentage of income) than their large Multistate counterparts.

The legislature's solution to this problem is subsection (f-1), section 171.106 of House Bill 4611 added. Under the new subsection purposes Division a bank is the gross proceeds from the sale of securities, be allowed, as part of their gross income the as "securities available for sale" or "Trading Securities" categorized under financial accounting standard (FAS) include no 115 as in effect on 1 January 2009. In other words, if a Bank Securities, thereby under FAS 115, categorized keeps it this securities 92.1% sold as from Alabama sources are handled by the gross proceeds, reducing this bank Texas distribution percentage and ultimately their franchise tax. So community keep banking and your tax advisor, this law change in mind in the preparation of the next year franchise tax reports.

One final note: Section 2 (providing that the laws originally only applies to a report due on or after the date of entry into force of the Bill) and section 3 (assuming that the legislation effective January 2010 is 1) House Bill 4611 together seem exclude reimbursement claims for banks that their securities sales reporting and paying their 2008 and 2009 franchise taxes used the net proceeds.

Home > practice and procedure > the Comptroller is on searching by service companies that were the cost incorrectly used method to calculate the margin sold >, Texas franchise tax > the Comptroller is on searching by service companies that were the cost incorrectly used method to calculate the margin sold >, Texas tax reform > the Comptroller is on searching by service companies that were the cost incorrectly used method to calculate the margin sold > | September 23, 2010
0 Comments

Audits of 2008 and 2009 reports filed under the revised franchise tax, the so-called "margin tax," "in full swing" for a while in the edition July 2010 Tax Policy News were the electronic tax return policy newsletter of the Texas Comptroller of public accounts (it is available the window on State Government agency visit). These tests are started a follow up of the Comptroller franchise tax "Desk audit" project, in 2009 and discussed in a previous post on this Web site labeled "upcoming franchise tax desk audits and more in the March issue of tax policy news."

As in the recent Tax Policy News-articles labeled "Service industry of entities generally qualify for the cost of goods sold deduction" explains, have revealed the latest audits that "…many wrong choice are entities in the service of industry cost of goods sold (COGS) deduction to use, the margin determine." A representative of the Comptroller Office in testimony before a August 17th provisional underlined consultation from Texas House ways and means Committee's Comptroller concern about the incorrect use of bulk storage consumption method. In fact the Comptroller representative of the Agency belief expressed, that such erroneous reporting a major reason why was the revised franchise tax of significantly less revenue for the years 2008 and 2009 report expected produced. As a result, it is not surprising to learn that the Comptroller audit process to generate is carefully provided service industry tax reports in an attempt to additional tax by.

What's more, produces a particularly hard result for many companies that incorrectly uses the COGS method for calculating the margin tested during these audits, since you can now switch to the compensation method may not (a taxable entity can only choose between the bulk storage consumption and compensation methods for calculating the margin at the time when a tax report is originally stored). That is how the Tax Policy News-article pointed out,

If an entity that selected the cost of the sold deduction to use this method for earlier years reports were eligible, the entity must change the reports. The compensation deduction but available reports for the previous years. Choice language in tax code section 171.101(d) allows no change in the method of computing margin at the cost of goods sold or compensation deduction after the due date of the report.

These entities that elected the costs were originally, to use sold method must change and use the 70 percent method to determine margin or revenue is not more than $10 million, may use the E-Z computation to determine tax due. E Z computation a cost of goods sold or compensation does not allow deduction in computing margin but instead apply a lower rate of 0.575 percent directly to dispositive total revenue.

In other words, if an entity the COGS method chosen, the margin on its original 2008 or his 2009 calculate report and should not, it must now use the "70% of the revenue method" (or, if authorized "E-Z Computation" method). This will almost certainly result in a higher tax as if the entity now only select, could the compensation method for the tested years use. This is another example of the Comptroller's strict interpretation of the calculation methods and options under the revised franchise tax described in the recent post on this site labeled "Select the 70% of revenue method of calculating the margin is irrevocable for the year."

| October 22, 2010
0 Comments

The Dallas Morning News reported that the Texas Comptroller of public accounts reviewed Amazon.com $ 269 million in uncollected Texas sales tax in a copyrighted story on its Web site. To find the whole story, here is a link to the newspaper Web site home page.

The Texas State and local tax law blog will provide more details about the assessment if they are publicly available.

| July 10, 2009
0 Comments

Orders of the day from the Supreme Court of Texas taxpayers denied petitions for review in two tax cases. The first denial-of-war in one case, sales Reynolds metals company v. Combs, et al., originally from the third Court of appeals decided February 4th and discussed on this site in a post labeled "Legislative acceptance doctrine will defeat not always a Comptroller policy." The Court later moved its original opinion and replaced its memorandum opinion on the hearing April 8th (accessible through the link above).

The second denied request for review was decided in an ad valorem (property tax case, ICAN Company Inc., et al., v. Williamson County appraisal district, et al., from the third Court of appeals. Opinion of the Court of Auditors to the issued (accessible from the link) on April 17th was and was discussed in a previous post "the lease a city owned hangar is taxable if the hangar is used to store aircraft".

The Texas Supreme Court's denial-of check is usually the last stop for State and local tax cases in Texas. Of course, there is always the possibility that the Supreme Court of Texas will change his mind on a motion of censure for case or that of the United States Supreme Court to one or two cases will decide. Extremely long shots are, however, so advise companies and their taxes with an interest in both cases should assume that you are now final.

James Maule has observed that some Congress of eartags benefactor who peppered are:

The practice of opposing peppered, while the share annoyed some members of Congress has. The best deal in this story reported among others comes from Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Reid said that some of those who to speak out "are people who have more crowded than others against peppered." "If in a dictionary and found hypocrites went to H, would be among the people for eartags to ask but vote against you."

Senator Dick Durbin, the ear tags inserted nearly $100 million in the legislation, is reported to have said, "many of the same senators who criticize... peppered are peppered have in the account." This is the height of hypocrisy to stand up and demand an ear tag and then fold your arms and pious announce, "I'm against peppered." "

Currently pending Congressional spending are invoices, the at least $8 billion in peppered contain. So much for the TAM-TAM's surrounded announcement by the Republicans, they were peppered ban last month. 38 You in pending legislation has Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a supporter of the ban on ear tags;. Senators John Thune and John Cornyn, attacked the legislation, which combined spending bills but peppered on the defensive with questions about the 17 had placed the two of you in the legislation. Thune replied: "I support this law to support these projects [funded by ear tags] but I."

Use this type of inconsistency, a gentler Word as hypocrisy, the deficit problems cut to underscores the madness of the opposition to budget deficit growth with support for tax combined extensions that help budget deficits, justified by claims that spending is reduced all thrown us from members who continue to solve to engage in the ear tag game.

I do not agree with Reid, Durbin and Maule. It is peppered hypocritical nor towards a total ban on while you benefit from earmarks while legally inconsistent.

Let me illustrate with a simple example:

When a Congressman hits that limit the speed on I-95 to be reduced to 55 miles per hour and for 70 miles per hour, he acts not hypocritical. His ride at the higher limit which speed is not hypocritical is because he does not propose that reduce the speed only for him, but rather that it be reduced for everyone. If on the other hand, the law changed and the maximum speed reduced to 55 and he continued to drive at 70, then he would be a hypocrite.¹

Allow Similarly, legislators, to favour a law, the ear tags; all congressmen not crowded when inserting their own invoices will be not necessarily hypocritical. If you are not back to bring the single for your constituents, are set on big political disadvantage.

Footnote:

I have repeatedly called for technology¹ to be fair, for these high net worth individuals on the left who have publicly clueless, increasing taxes on the rich to put your money where their mouths are and voluntarily more taxes. Left has countered with the same argument I do here: whether this wealthy Pro Taxers are not proposing a policy only your taxes but rather a increase, which will increase the taxes of all high-income people. You have a point.

Square Maule then says that the opposition to peppered only on principle (emphasis added is):

Earmarks $8 billion, although apparently represents a huge amount of money to most of us, something in the order of one quarter of one percent of the annual federal budget. I doubt there is already a drop in the bucket. It is rather a grain of sand at the beach. So what's the big deal? The great thing is principle. The great thing is the nefarious effects on the economy of a way of thinking, the tax extensions and peppered cut while complaining about budget deficits and accepted federal spending.

When no clear direction is submitted, are those who run end up scattered and lost. This is what will? Perhaps. Is this what do Americans? I hope not. But it's what we always have been and we continue to be what, until enough people understand what happened and strengthen opposition.

, Increased deficits we continue for as long as people on the left side as Professor right proposal of Maule, discount of each budget cut actually is page on the grounds that it is only "a drop in the bucket."

The prohibition of ear tags as spending cut action is more than principle, Mr Maule, because a bucket full, receives after enough drop into fall.

A named gentlemen Borden Bradley t. told his daughter - we call their little Borden - a tax parable that he called miss the Prince and the pauper who believes he proves that the rich from the politicians have purchased, to less than their fair share of taxes (added highlighting) to pay:

"So, Dad, the Prince of less tax paid and caused the beggars to pay, although made less money?"asked my daughter.

"Yes," I said. "The Prince was able to influence the law and reduce tax, rent its taxes."

"But the beggars couldn't" interrupted.

"Right."

", Which is apparently fair not," she said. Then asked: "Princes and beggars in America we?"

"Most people in America are more like the beggar." I replied. "You have income from work, which in General is taxed." "A small percentage of people are however, as the Prince, and have a lot of your investment income that is taxed or not at all."

"The Prince has to invest the money he would the beggars to benefit as he said,?", asked you.

"I don't think so", I replied.

"Why not the Supreme Governor could spend only less?" asked me.

"The head less spent, he would have to cut services." At some point, the Government can no longer cut services. Also of less expenditure would not make gerechteren taxes. "

Bradley Borden is yet another soak the rich true believers not to read and understand a basic tax diagram.¹

I hate your Daddy worship bubble, little Miss burst flanges, but the truth is that (your Daddy calls the Princes EM) pay about 60% of all of the top 5% income earners in America taxes and the bottom 50% (the beggar) pay less than 5% of all the taxes.

See my blog post entitled, the share of taxes paid increased during the Bush tax cut years by the rich.

In good class warfare form gives Mr. Borden us then the mandatory Maulian disbelief at how all think mid-range or poor person may not seize more of the wealth which range from (emphasis added) could encourage:

Finally, the difficult question asked [my daughter]:

"When so many Americans like the beggars are and might pay less money if everyone paid a fair share, say why more people Congress tax law change?"

This is an excellent question for which I have no answer.

What really here says Borden is that he did not understand, why agree to a majority of people will not, trample take caused to the rights of a minority of the population to some of their wealth. It is a telling if not surprisingly, approval of someone who belongs to an ideological cadre made their living from defending the rights of minorities.

Well, I have an answer for little Miss Borden:

Americans do not believe in class warfare as your dad, because they understand and appreciate the dangers of a Government that the wealth of the few haves to it, the many seized have nots. In other words, the beggars are smart enough to know that Stalinism was tried before and failed.

The lesson little Miss Borden should learn but is not, from her dad's adorable little parable is to not believe everything, your dad says it.

Footnotes:

¹  Below is a chart from the tax Foundation, the percent of the federal income tax, by each income group paid are listed. Made as Nick Gillespie says, "whatever else you want to say about the Bush tax rates you the wealthy pony up more of the whole."

Percent of the federal income tax paid by each group

Year top 01 top 1% of top 5% 5-10% top 10 10-25% top 25 25 50 top 50% bot 50%

(Hat tip: Paul Caron)

Andrew Sullivan of the daily dish posted today this ABC News/WaPo survey:

 

Andrew tells us, what does this all mean Kevin Drum thinks the Mother Jones:

Why are more people in favor of an estate cut taxes you will never see, but to favor of a Lohnsummensteuer intersected set instant money in your own pocket so many?

Possible answers: (a) people don't really understand that cut pay and payroll means taxes to you, (c) fantastic overestimate an immediate increase in their take home pay, (b) people pay and payroll taxes so heavily with social security solvency assign do not want people as are likely to see, a $5 million estate when you die (d) many people have a strong instinctive view, the people on their wealth for your children, no matter how much it is, (e) people are just confused about all this stuff and it is hopeless to try to figure out what really is going to pass should be.

Mr drum I give credit for at least including its five possible answers an option (d), which not offend the intelligence of the majority.

But I have a (f):

People are against high taxes of whatsoever because you know that higher taxes reduce the chances that Congress ever seriously be entertained spending cuts. And the failure cut spending means a growing Government.

And a (g):

People realize that the federal bureaucracy is inefficient and wasteful and therefore believe that it is foolish to the Government give a raise, if it the money that there already been carelessly has wasted.

Liberals make regular the cynical assumption that conservative support only policies that you will be personally and directly benefit. Therefore, if a conservative is a measure which allegedly benefited him against the links to the conclusion that he does not really understand you it.¹

I don't know maybe you're only project. I know however, that decisions (f) and (g) only possibilities of someone had made this assumption could have been.

Footnotes:

Technology¹ blogger and tax you law professor James Maule is one of the worst offenders of this type of initial analysis bias. He can not simply understand how informed and intelligent middle-class American confiscatory taxation upper-class Americans could oppose. The irony is, of course, while Mr Maule claims someone else - be self-less because he is willing to support measures which will have adverse effects on him if these policies benefit the country as a whole, he could not imagine, especially a conservative or a Republican - will be similarly motivated.

Tags: Policy of taxation · Tax policy

"Capital is dead work that lives only by sucking of living labour, vampire-like, and the more lives the more work it sucks."

I have reviewed in this article and I'm strange with the author, but it is still awfully interesting.

Tim Worstall write for adamsmith.org says that the taxation of capital will be reduced not inequality of income because rich people today rich to get by investing, but by 'Investment' in her own work:

Maybe our friends lefty right..., that we should capital tax, the things in the possession and the rich, more highly held social reasons?

Well, no, it has a huge underlying change in what where deserve since the gilded age. It was true (these are Canadian figures but much the same numbers for USA and UK), that the majority of the upper income from income from capital, and also came the majority of the capital was result to top income of peeps.

That's not necessarily true today at all.

Occurs by far the majority of upper income from labour income these days. And the majority of the investment income is the income scale to those below: Canada, 50% of the investment income went to workers with an income of less than $60,000 per year. It is simply not true (as it was probably a century ago), those get it with high income from interest and dividends, you make everything to have.

To increase capital taxation only going to reduce inequality of incomes for the top earners are always your income isn't from their work, our work.

As so often, we find our lefty friends who fight the battles of a century ago. Since it is not true that high income are a result of capital concentration then tax returns to capital, to either go reduce high incomes and income inequality.

If Worstall is correct and I believe he is – increasing taxes on capital gains and dividends will do little reducing of inequality of incomes in the United States and can even increase it.

Even better, if capital accumulation no longer is the owning and the have nots, then what is a Marxist to do?

Now, I know one thing, the he's not: give, that rich not enough because you control the levers of the capital. After all, if the recording he was made a Marxist no longer and he would be having to admit always closer to the equally unfathomable:, the rich their disproportionate wealth through one or a combination of the following deserve:

(a) work harder

work (intelligent b)

God forbid.

Footnotes:

Technology¹ America is no longer a capital intensive, production-based society, but rather a service economy. This means work, not capital. As a result, it is rich to get through education of human capital, but rather work useful if Worstall says that rich no longer. The only remaining question is "whose work?" Think about the super-rich in America? Top flight doctors, elite lawyers, professional athletes and entertainers. You all make their wealth largely due to one of their own work. In short, the rich are not rich in America because you have stockpiled the means of production. They are rich, because you deserve it.

"Although suppressed, growing inequalities;" only the man under the average economic ability desires equality; "those outstanding ability conscious desire freedom, and at the end of outstanding ability has its way."

-Will Durant-

Yesterday in Panama City opened a certified Wackjob named clay Duke fire on six school board members he accused, firing his school teacher wife. Fortunately, he was about as good a shot as the Schofield kid and missed you all. He turned the gun on himself later itself and, again, fortunately to hit his target:

The police say that it had planned for some time to do ex-convict named stopped a Florida School Board at gunpoint. Panama City says Tuesday's police chief John van Etten was date from a calendar in the 56-year-old clay Duke North of Panama City trailer was found circled. Board members shot Duke even after firing at school during a session on Tuesday. Nobody was hurt.

Before opening fire, he painted a red V on a wall and talked about his wife, who is thrown. Officials say worked for the schools, but it was not clear whether you resigned or had dismissed or what was your job. Apparently, she lived with her mother in a nearby city. Van Etten says the shooting was not "spur of the moment."

The police found also anti-Government Paraphanelia in Duke's House.

We have read and written about the bratty children rioted in London, because their tuition fees by the taxpayer funded was to increase. We have read about the spoiled French received violent in Paris, because the Government was going to raise the retirement age of 62. And we have read wild mob about of entitled Greeks, the cars on fire and damaged buildings set because their nanny State Government from money ran and announced that it would have to stop its handout programmes.

But we Americans are individualists. We need no stinkin' group to tell us when are not violent. Take our standards, we have our tantra alone.

So motivated what Mr Herzog to try to kill the School Board? Was it right talk radio? Glenn Beck, perhaps? Maybe it was to this crazy tea party goers running always telling everyone how bad is Government?

Well, it turns out, it was none of the above even intended, threw the AP in the mandatory Zinger about the police, the search for "anti-Government utensils" in Duke's House.

See what you say the AP that Mr Herzog rich hated and kept, and the system which he thought you controlled, is responsible for his wife firing (and probably for any other bad and unfortunate thing, it ever in his life short and disturbed occurred).¹

The Huffington Post has more on what have eaten Duke can (emphasis is mine):

Entries from December 7 and 8 are only dated on a Facebook page under his name. The page displays a cryptic message "about me" section.

"My Testament: some people (the State-funded media) to say I was evil, a monster (V)... No.... I was only in a country where the wealthy manipulate, use, abuse and economically to enslave 95 percent of the population born poor." Rich Republicans, Democrats... same same... rich... you alternately cupping us... our few dollars... pyramiding wealth for themselves. "

His Facebook profile PIC is the Red V icon he painted over during the session on the wall and its page contains photos from the film "V for Vendetta," that was a graphic novel.

Citing Billionaire Warren Buffett said in 2006 New York Times: "it is all right class warfare, but it is my class, the rich class that makes war and we are winning."

Make the blood vessels that would become bulging of the forehead of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schulz, Duke's Facebook page, anti-Government comment of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh say, rather than an anti-rich comment by Mr. Buffett had cited?  Have doubts that the mainstream media will call a cautionary tale about the evils of conservative anti Governmentism Duke's outbreak would?

I do not.

Footnotes:

Blame the soak the rich amount technology¹ I for what Duke did yesterday? Absolutely not. The only person that is responsible for what is Duke Duke itself. But I doubt for even a nanosecond, Duke had been, a tea party type would have blamed the anti-Government set the left, and probably conservatives in General for what happened. No doubt at all.

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9243.
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9490.

“I’ll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too.”

- Wicked Witch of the West -

Feminist broom-pilot Wendy Murphy says that the rape charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange are weak and hurt true victims of rape (emphasis added):

As a former sex crimes prosecutor, I’m the last person you might expect to come to the defense of the unsavory WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. But the charges that now have him sitting in a British prison reek of opportunism and political expediency, and that does women around the world no good.

That doesn’t mean that I think the two women who’ve accused him of committing sexual offenses last August are lying. One woman said she had consensual sex with Assange, but that the condom broke and he used his body weight to hold her down, presumably to complete the act.

She hosted a party for him the next evening.

A few days later, Assange had sex with another woman—allegedly while she was asleep—also without wearing a condom. Both women reportedly acknowledged that they freely chose to engage in sex acts with Assange—but that some of his conduct was nonconsensual.

As a general matter, assuming the allegations are true, Assange should be punished because he violated the women’s fundamental right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity by acting without their “knowing, intelligent and voluntary” consent.

For the love of God, Elmira, isn’t screwing someone while they’re asleep the very definition of rape?¹

And this Wendy Murphy – the one who only assumes Assange’s accusers are telling the truth – is the same Wendy Murphy who is renowned for her repeated public condemnation of the clearly innocent Duke Lacrosse players and who once stated on the MSNBC news show The Situation that women never lie about rape:

“I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.”

Then the arbiter of all things consensual and sexual shows her true colors when she says (again, the emphasis is mine),

In another context, I might support these claims as legitimate sex crimes charges simply to get the message out more clearly in this country that nobody should impose their body parts onto or inside the body of another person without their knowing, intelligent and voluntary consent.

So Wendy Murphy believes we should criminally prosecute men wrongly accused of rape just to “get the message out.” Well, I suppose this explains why she continues to support the condemnation of the Duke LaCrosse players and continues to publicly defend their disbarred rogue prosecutor, Michael Nifong.

Wendy Murphy is a bad and dangerous person and if you don’t believe me just listen to Radley Balko of Reason (emphasis added):

Murphy’s continuing saturation of the cable news airwaves is nauseating. Her punditry career should have ended with the Duke lacrosse case, when she appeared all over cable news to defend Nifong and to damn the falsely accused lacrosse players, first prematurely, then even as it became clear to the rest of the world that they were innocent. (As late as last year Murphy was still griping about the lacrosse case).

K.C. Johnson wrote of Murphy at the time,

“In addition to the outrageous quotes highlighted above, on at least 18 occasions over the past nine months, Murphy has made demonstrably untrue statements. She also has engaged in a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation and has routinely denigrated due process.”

Murphy never apologized for repeatedly slandering the Duke players. Yet her punditry career took off. She was rewarded with a book contract and dozens more TV appearances.

William Anderson noted earlier this year that Murphy was recently invited onto the Today show to vouch for Catoosa County, Georgia’s shameful sex abuse persecution of Tonya Craft.

(Craft was acquitted on all counts.)

In a 2007 interview with the American Journalism Review, here’s how Murphy justified going on TV to publicly convict potentially innocent people in spite of the evidence against them:

“Lots of folks who voiced the prosecution position in the beginning [of the Duke case] gave up because they faced a lot of criticism, and that’s never my style.” She notes that she’s invited on cable shows to argue for a particular side. “You have to appreciate my role as a pundit is to draw inferences and make arguments on behalf of the side which I’m assigned,” she says. “So of course it’s going to sound like I’m arguing in favor of ‘guilty.‘ That’s the opposite of what the defense pundit is doing, which is arguing that they’re innocent.”

It’s all theater, you see. She’s just playing a part. It’s fine if she slanders some people, ruins some reputations, spouts flat falsehoods, and generally dumbs down the public discourse. Because it’s just entertainment. It’s what pundits do.

Ms. Murphy wants us to believe that she’s merely a law whore whose opinions can be bought. It is clear to me, however, that she’s trying to distance herself from some of the outrageous and immoral allegations she has publicly made against innocent young men.

So, when she’s says she’s merely making an argument on behalf of the side to which she is assigned by the network, she’s lying through her teeth.

Television pundits like Murphy are asked to appear on air because of their views. They aren’t asked to mold their views so they can get on television. In other words, when NBC needs a pundit to present the prosecution’s point of view it looks for one who already holds that point of view.

Make no mistake about it, Murphy gets her T.V. gigs because of her well-known legal positions. She doesn’t develop her position after she gets the T.V. gig. This is why you never see Murphy taking a defense position on air and why her written material always conforms with what she says on air.

These are Wendy Murphy’s views, people, and she is indeed a dangerous person.²

Footnotes:

¹  I don’t know whether Assange did anything wrong in this case, but I do know that it’s a facially much stronger case than the one brought by prosecutor Michael Nifong against three white Duke Lacross players in 2006, which prosecution Wendy Murphy publicly and stridently supported. (She’s claimed, without a shred of evidence, that the young men “ripped open the girl’s vagina.”)

²  For you mothers-of-sons out there who are still not convinced that Murphy is a loose cannon, consider that she is on record saying that rape cases are easy to prosecute:

There’s nothing inherently difficult about prosecuting rape. It is, in fact, the easiest and least expensive crime to investigate and prosecute. The victim takes the stand and says she was forced to have sex without h er consent. If the jurors believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, they vote guilty. If not, they vote not guilty.

In other words, Murphy believes that a mere accusation without a single shred of corroborating evidence is enough for a prosecutor to bring an aggravated rape charge against a man who has no criminal record. Couple this with her wacky contention that women never lie about rape and you really don’t need a trial at all. All you have to do is have the woman identify her rapist and proceed to sentencing.

If we extended Murphy’s irresponsible and downright loony theory to non-sexual violence cases, it would mean that I could file a police report against a neighbor alleging that he broke into my house and stole my laptop and the prosecutor would allow the case to go to trial and the jury decide his guilt based solely on my testimony.

And Wendy Murphy claims to be a champion of due process and the Bill of Rights?

With views like these Wendy Murphy has disqualified herself from ever holding a prosecutorial position in America again. In fact, she shouldn’t even be permitted to clean the latrine of a prosecutor’s office.

She’s nuttier than a Snickers bar and twice as dangerous to the national health.

If we want to American staff start company to invest in America and we should start, the highest not see through income tax rate to the federal companies in the world.

Dan Mitchell Cato says now that Japan is exactly its corporate income tax rate of 5 cut has, where America can be found:

Japan has announced that it will cut its corporate income tax rate by five percentage points. This America with the highest corporate was the global laggard on corporate tax reform, Japan and the United States rate under 34 wealthy Nations, the Organisation for economic cooperation and development leaves.

Then, for those a little slow on the record, he says us, why this is a bad thing:

This is not a good position for us to be. Most of the competition from US companies face comes from company headquartered in other OECD countries. America competes with other OECD countries as a location for investment. Our high corporate tax rate scared investments in new plants, makes it difficult to compete for U.S. companies in foreign markets and provides strong incentives for companies avoid and escape control.

The diagram shows the KPMG data for 2010 on statutory corporate tax rates in the OECD, but I also in the new lower price for Japan. Reform of the Japanese, the average rate in the OECD will be 25.6 percent.

This means that it is 56 percent higher than the average wealthier nation at the 40 percent U.S. rate.

Finally, he is President Obama a recommendation:

Most tax experts agree that the U.S. corporate tax rate is cutting a high priority, and President of Obama's financial year the Commission approved the idea. If the President to the economy will fire from all cylinders and generate a new pragmatic and centrist image for himself-he should charge to delete the corporate rate by at least 20 percent.

State level taxes on top a federal corporate rate of 20 percent would America above the OECD average and all these companies are setting a good reason sitting on piles of cash to start investing again to give.

Daniel j. Mitchell Cato like the tax business for the obvious reason:

The reason there much like and like the tax deal between President Obama and-Kongresses Guide. On the positive side we dodge a big tax increase for the next two years. We replace a goofy and ineffective "Work rewarding make" tax credit with a supply-side oriented reducing wage and payroll tax rate (only for year a, so it probably not much economic benefits will be).

And for the not so obvious reason:

But here's a bit of good news that has received much attention. The tax deal ends "build America bonds" tax preference, was one of the most devastating provisions of Obama of so-called stimulus. Here is an excerpt from a Bloomberg report.

Senate Democrats secure the subsidy which has helped finance bridges, roads and other public works, it fell added shortly in a bid to get, an invoice, the extension of the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts. A failure was the latest efforts to build America program 31.12 to keep alive behind its scheduled end. …While Obama and Democrats to extend have supported it, you have run into opposition from Republican critical of the stimulus package. Extensions passed twice the Democratic-controlled House only to stall in the Senate, where the Republican minority sufficiently powered is to block legislation. The Government pays the interest costs on build America bonds 35. …The proponents are State and local governments, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the construction industry representatives under the program.

Build America bonds are a backdoor handout for wasteful State and local governments so that more money to lend, while some of the resulting interest costs on the Federal Government moved.

But States are already in deep trouble because of too much spending and debt, to encourage more spending, and debt with federal tax was a very bizarre policy distortions.

In addition the directive the economy by creating a incentive for investors harm State and local governments rather than private sector Investments.That's a very bad idea, unless you think somehow (in spite of all the evidence) that it is wise to the public sector at the expense to make greater private sector.

In one fell swoop, build America bonds increase the load on the Federal Government, encourages a greater burden of the State and local government and drained resources from the productive sector of the economy.

That is stupid of Washington standards. So what we think of the overall package about, let us enjoy the death of this destructive provision.

Also dislikes Mitchell the tax business for the obvious reason:

On the negative side, the business expanded unemployment benefits, which has the perverse effects of the unemployment subsidy. The deal is filled with all kinds of corrupt governing various stakeholders such as ethanol producers.

And for the not so obvious reason:

Then there are provisions like the 35 percent death tax. Is this bad news because there is an increase of zero percent this year? Or there is good news because it much lower than the 55% rate effective at the beginning of next year was planned? This is difficult to answer, even though I know the correct rate of 0 (zero).

As regards the extension of unemployment benefits, the Democrats managed to what do you often: fashion a measure which appears on its face, compassionate, generous and care, but in reality is bad for the intended benefactors and the country as a whole.¹

It is true. Extending unemployment benefits incentivizes unemployment and does nothing to create jobs. If to spend felt the Democrats taxpayer money to help unemployed forced would have done better, currently unemployed Americans give everyone that gets a job and considers it a $5,000 a year-tax reduction.

Reward employment, not unemployment.

Duh!

Footnotes:

Technology¹ Bill Clinton moved right reform America's social system. It was one of the best pieces of legislation in recent years 5o and effectively killed the word "Welfare" and replace it with the word "Workfare." Should be required every able-bodied American citizen currently receiving unemployment benefits to its services to the Government by volunteers. It is a crime, 10% of Floridians are always taxpayer money for sitting on your sofa while only a few meters outside their homes, streets with bedding are filled.

Alternatively we should offer instead of allocating "unemployment" citizens, short-term employment. This will make you feel better about yourself because you will get you at least partially, worthy of support. We have not of learned now that we do not not only you money * and when we do, we run of the entitled risk a revolt as we have seen, in Greece, France and England to create.

* Even moderately responsible parents know enough to your tasks for your certificates do children and parents criminally like should be arrested the for unleashing on society by Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan.

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9127

"He can take his 'n and beat your' n then take your'n and beat his'n."

-Houston Oilers coach bum Phillips on Miami Dolphins' coach Don Shula-.

One L at the University of Miami School of law are required to participate in a moot court exercise where they make an argument for the appellant and then switch sides and make a counter argument for the Todd white. The pedagogical goal of the exercise is to get Carlyle lawyers to understand the necessity of knowing the strengths and weaknesses of opposing arguments.

So, since I have already f.d.a. ad infinitum that the the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone, not just the middle class, today I will argue the other side: namely, that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire for taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 a year.

Wish me luck.

The rich will not spend their tax savings

The primary reason for extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class is to stimulate spending and jump start the economy. The middle class will use their tax savings on necessities and, therefore, their tax cuts will have the stimulus effect looked for. The rich, on the other hand, do not need a tax cut in order to pay for their necessities and, therefore, are less likely to spend their tax savings in a manner that will stimulate the economy.

Listen to Timothy Homan of Bloomberg:

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody's Analytics Inc. when taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and Democrats in Congress who some say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse them to reduce will their spending promptly, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.

"I would continued to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior," said Chris Cornell on economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody's analytics. "Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues."

The Moody's research covering couples earning more than $210,000 found that spending by the wealthy is more likely to be influenced by the ups and downs of the stock market than changes in income-tax rates.

In short, the benefits of extending the tax cuts for the rich are less than the costs of doing so.

The wealth gap will increase

The gap between the haves and the have nots has nearly tripled in the last 30 years. The rich have seen their incomes sku rocket while the middle class have experienced only moderate increases. Democratic societies operate best when large discrepancies of wealth are avoided. When there is disparate wealth there is disparate influence (or at least the appearance of it) which causes those at the bottom to loose faith in the system.

Listen to Timothy Noah of slate:

[I] ncome inequality is a topic of huge importance to American society and therefore a subject of large and growing interest to a host of economists, political scientists, and other wonky types. Except for a few libertarian outliers (whose views we'll examine later), these experts agree that the country's growing income inequality is deeply worrying. Even Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Board chairman and onetime Ayn Rand acolyte, has registered concern. "This is not the type of thing which a democratic society a capitalist democratic society can really accept without addressing," Greenspan saidin 2005. Greenspan's Republican-appointed successor, Ben Bernanke, has so fretted about income inequality.

Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich as well as the middle-class will increase the wealth gap even further because in a progressive tax system across the board tax cuts have a regressive effect in that those in the higher tax brackets will experience greater tax savings.

The deficit will increase

Extending the Bush tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 per year increase the deficiency will by $700 billion. If the cutting the taxes of rich people were guaranteed to stimulate the economy and result in job creation, then, perhaps, it would be worth the cost of increasing the deficiency. But, as discussed above, since it is unlikely that tax cuts for the rich will have any significant stimulus effect we would have substantially increased the deficiency for little or no return.

Here's what Isabel Sawhill of Brookings wrote back in 2005 when the deficiency what less than a third of what it is now:

Psychiatrists have clinical terms to describe how most elected officials are responding to the deficiency - denial, repression, magical thinking. In short, they're doing next to nothing. There is a deafening silence - from the halls of Congress and corporate boardrooms to the living rooms and voting booths where Americans make decisions about their own and their children's futures.

In fact, there is some good news on the front of. The Congressional Budget Office outlook for 2005 has improved markedly since its March projection. But no one should be lulled into thinking that this good news will last. The problem will get much worse if nothing is done. Deficits will become unsustainable when baby boomers begin to retire in 2008 and are poised to balloon out of control a generation hence, wreaking havoc on today's younger Americans.

The rich can afford to pay more taxes

The most obvious of all reasons for not extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is also the best reason. They can afford it.

If we were not saddled with a diagnosis of trillion dollar and there were good options for making serious spending cuts, perhaps this argument would not be as strong. But, as I said earlier, in a time of fiscal emergency the only people who can afford to pay more taxes are the rich and it is both reasonable and moral that we ask them to do so.

How did I do?¹

Footnotes:

¹  Alert readers will note that I have made no ad hominem attacks on those who believe we should renew the Bush tax cuts for the rich as well as the middle class. Not a single use of the words selfish, greedy or evil. I assume that the opponents of tax increases on rich people are every bit as patriotic, compassionate and sincere in their beliefs as are the proponents of tax increases on the rich. In other words, it is, the character and decency of those who happen to think differently possible to argue for the expiration of tax cuts on wealthy people without assassinating.

On a slow tax news day I can always issues, James Maule's blog posted again and find a blog post that I can take exception. Here is his latest rant about how everyone else on the tax issue except being conned him (and I assume his comrades in arms Professor Linda Beale):

Years ago, "show me the money" entered the phrase in the vernacular. Maybe it's time to say, "show us orders." Show us the jobs, the nation will answer in gratitude with a tax credit. No tax breaks no jobs. Thats like tax law incentive provisions work.

Threat "no tax breaks, no jobs" is nothing more than bully posturing of the worst sort. There is a reason, tax cut extension supporters as the "show us the jobs then get the tax break"-approach. You know you have some jobs, mainly permanent jobs created in response to earlier tax cuts and the nation to see any kind of job growth with an extension of tax cuts.

Despite warning after warning still people hand over cash home improvement con artists and behavior lead come later when, and because you discover been duped have to repent. Perhaps this explains why America continue to hear and even cave in, grabbing the siren songs of the Pied Piper tax cut.

Still, just as people that keep firm it is in negotiating contracts and perform due diligence before signing a contract, there are people in this country who know how hard working out tax legislation hang and how the facts check, before you agree to a deal.

It is to bombard time for the people their legislators in Washington with a simple message: stop duped being - hold out for job creation before Dishing out tax breaks. I wonder if the Congress has enough of what it takes to save themselves and the nation from the scammers and dubious money grabber. I have serious doubts.

This is epitome Maule and whether you with the substance or not agree, is for the sheer audacity it is Audacity be admired.

Let's break it down, so we are:

"Show us the jobs, the nation will answer in gratitude with a tax deduction."

False. No matter how many jobs due to a greedy Obama created rich tax deal not the extension of the Bush tax cuts are true believers like Mr Maule credit with the cause. He and his ilk will say one or both of the following:

The economy was already in turn before the tax deal was actual to job creation was a result of the middle class tax cuts and we not taxes for rich had cut we would create more jobs.

There is simply no evidence can be produced that will get anti-rich, Pro-big government liberal ever, agree that the rich pay their fair share of taxes. At all!¹

The myth that the rich countries are the cause of the problems of America is part of the Liberal DNA. Without it no longer the class warfare card can be played and without the class warfare map never can win another choice Liberals.

"The" no tax breaks, no jobs "Threat is nothing more than the worst Sort… bully" Gehabe. [T] AX cut extension advocate may not "us view the jobs, then get the tax break"-approach.

Goodness.

If the set people believe that create the tax breaks, jobs, how can you point may the jobs first? That would be like God answering the praying farmer: "map, the me your bumper crop and then I'll make it rain."

The result of a thing may precede the cause.

"You know you have some jobs, mainly permanent jobs created in response to earlier tax cuts and the nation to see any kind of job growth with an extension of tax cuts."

Mr Maule here does what every good demagogue does: he attributes a motif for his opposition, said his motive is different. And attributed is a nefarious: namely that anti Taxers know one range for the tax cut is bad for the economy and no new jobs but want that it anyway.

Intoxicated by a metaphysical certainty, mostly in Shaman and nineteen-year-old student activists, Mr Maule assumes that those might do agree so noble with him reasons. But because he consistently positive supported himself about his accuracy, into a rigid corner, where he has no choice but finally, that those who are with him accept ulterior motives for doing so have.

The moral inferiority of the opponent is the only possible conclusion consistent with such a high level of assurance. All others require at least a minimum of doubt.

"Stop Geführt-Out for jobs before dealing keep being behind the light tax breaks." I wonder if the Congress has enough of what it takes to save themselves and the nation from the scammers and dubious money grabber. "I have serious doubts."

Again, the ad hominem attacks.

Maule increased who tax resists for rich criminals and money grabber and those who follow you are too damn stupid to see it.

Thats one heck of a way to win converts, huh? Tell them how evil and stupid.

Footnotes:

¹  Raison d ' être die hard. There are many on the left who still refuse to acknowledge the following:

Soviet Communism was a serious threat to Western CivilizationAmerica cold WarThe Soviet Ronald Reagan broke policies in large part because of the hawks won

You don't have to spend much time with your Google search to find bar one established, mainstream Liberals wax disjointed on how the Communist threat never really was, but rather a false creation procedure from the heat oppressed brain of cynical right designed to perpetuate his power.

"The tallest tree Gets the toughest wind."

-Konfuzius-

Daniel Becker write for angry bear confesses what I claimed on this page for many months have: leftmost wants the boats of the poor and the middle class to raise, so much as it wants to sink the boats of the rich.

Here what he let said in a post titled, the tax cuts go and hold's it to the top for real:

As part of the nation to support you we were screwed. I ask you all. The bottom 99%. Really want it in the economic royalty in this nation to keep? Is it 1% to 2.5% much to give, finally reality in the income tax?

So do what you say. We show only those at the top you are as unpatriotic. Make the tax cuts go and stand proud because honest American justice won. The largest Screwer you screwed all …the American economic royalty free.

It is there. Naked and proudly call to class warfare.

Tags: Policy of taxation · Tax policy

So much for the pose.

The Washington Post reports that today the Senate voted to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich by a whopping 62 vote margin:

After a decade of the partisan sniping tax credits issued in the George W. Bush administration, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed to a plan you than Dec. 31 81 19 vote to keep the cuts in the village for families income at all for another two years beyond.

Comedian/Senator Al Franken of Minnesota explains why he voted for the extension of all of the Bush tax cuts:

A lot of people are unhappy punted the President first down, and I am one of you. Expand the excessive Bush tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires is our deficit without something to help our economy explode in the next two years. I think it's just bad politics.

But fight for Minnesota's middle class, by in a tough economy, there is a lot in this Bill that will really help: tax cuts for working families, one Payroll payroll tax holiday, energy tax credits and the extension of the Recovery Act initiatives that already make a difference.

I liked better francs if he was moderately fun.

Tags: Legislative watch · News · Policy of taxation · Tax humor · Tax policy

The more I read and hear about the Wikileaks fiasco, the more will I convinced that America can put the toothpaste back into the tube. It is always leaks and these leaks find their way onto the pages of the Internet, whether we it or not.

So, what should I do?

Now, what happens when started the us instead of fight to prevent the leaks is published a campaign of misinformation, where it intentionally "Leaks" and uploads to Wikileaks and similar sites false classified information. This will destroy the credibility of the Wikileaks because its readers unable, accurate information and phony classified information can differ.

Just an idea. What do you think?

Tags: Opinion

CBS News reports that agreed late at night the House of representatives to pass the Obama tax inter alia deal you will extend the Bush tax cuts for all American taxpayers:

Trading with unusual speed, Congress President Obama sent curved, bipartisan legislation to avoid a Jan. to renew 1 spike income taxes for millions and unemployment benefits for the victims of the worst recession for 80 years late Thursday.

The measure will reduce social security taxes for almost every wage earners and billions of dollars in the still sluggish economy to pumps. CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Nancy Cordes reports, primarily is an early Christmas present for every American taxpayer.

The Bill 81 19 came less than 24 hours after the Senate deleted 277-148 votes.

The legislation was the result of a reach across party lines between Obama and top Republicans in Congress - stubborn opponents during two years of political struggle ended, the GOP the undisputed winner in midterm elections on November 2 were.

Now awaits President's signature. In other words, it is a done deal and an early Christmas present for the American taxpayer.

Tags: Legislative watch · News · Tax policy

Everything had to do to a hero in the 1960s became, write a song or two that have hurt some social taboo, striking promiscuous sex and die of an overdose of drugs.

See Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison.

At least the first two were talented.

Lame lame duck Governor Charlie Crist has given a posthumous pardon and the third, lead singer of the doors and most prolific drug head, Jim Morrison:

Outgoing Governor Charlie Crist asked for the pardon granted the mildly Board unanimously. Crist he said Morrison actually questioned his penis during a rowdy 1 March 1969 concert in Miami's dinner key Auditorium suspended. He and a three member Cabinet serve as the mild Board. The pardon supports the remaining members of the doors.

Crist at the hearing called a conviction "Blot" on the record of an accomplished artist for "something he may or may not have done." Morrison died before he was granted the chance, his vocation to present, to Crist that do for him, he said. Members of the Board pointed out, several times that you could repeat the case but that the pardon Morrison, forgave like others of their beliefs on Thursday were acquitted.

"In this case the guilt or innocence is in God's hands, not us," said Crist.

I have no doubt that Governor tanning bed is a big fan of the doors music and this was a major influence on his decision granting pardon. That certainly makes sense because Jim Morrison's poetry, Shakespeare, Milton and Blake rivals. Listen to just this monosyllabic tour de farce:

Love me two times, baby
Love me twice today
Love me two times, girls
I'm goin way '
Love me two times, girls
One for tomorrow
One just for today
Love me two times
I'm goin way '

Love me once
I could not speak
Love me once
Yeah, my knees got weak
But love me two times, girls
All last me through the week
Love me two times
I'm goin way '
Love me two times
I'm goin way '

Oh yes

Love me once
I could not speak
Once, love me baby
Yeah, my knees got weak
But love me two times, girls
All last me through the week
Love me two times
I'm goin way '

Love me two times, Babe
Love me twice today
Love me two times, Babe
Because I removed Goin ' am
Love me two times, girls
One for tomorrow
One just for today
Love me two times
I'm goin way '
Love me two times
I'm goin way '
Love me two times
I'm goin way '

Paul Simon food could be two doses of alphabet soup, his finger in his neck stick and induce lyrics of better than this.

Jim Morrison died from an overdose drugs at the age of 27. His entire adult life was always high and screws dedicated groupies. He was an accomplished artist like the above texts an attractive iconoclast prove, but rather, who just happened to live in an iconoclastic time.

It must be earned someone more a pardon Crist as these losers.

Tags: News · Opinion · Policy

Victim - a Word from Liberals used to someone to describe that can be made to believe that he is affected by a policy or policy proposal of a Republican.Rassistisch-Alan Keyes once said this about the racist Word: a word used Ronald Reagan to people as different as Byron de La Beckwith, and to describe the white Duke lacrosse player is completely free of importance. Sexistische- A pejorative by radical feminists used to define a man, do not agree with the platform of the national organization for women (NOW) and/or who treated women as sex objects, which means only for some that he has had sex with you. Exceptions have pro-choice fancy Chief Bill Clinton and artist paedophile Roman Polanski has been granted.Homophober- A Word from Liberals used to stigmatise the Conservatives, the idea is for everyone, special rights for gay oppose people, have latent homosexual tendencies. Works only if there is a social taboo against homosexuality, which means that the people who use it must promote the continuing stigma of homosexuality for the label to be effective. Fear monger- Fear to do something different than what they should fear used to describe someone who tried the American people. The poster child for this is Al Gore, which regularly, George W. Bush accused the scare tactics of the terror problem while at the same time fear-mongering of the global warming problem stating, the New York City under twenty feet would be water within a decade.Ungleichheit- By Liberals in a way that suggests, want equal opportunities when what you really want, equality of results is used. In other words, left wing code speak for quotas.Gierig- A Word to describe Republican and conservative, against high taxes of Regardlless how much give their time and money these people for private charity.Hatred A heinous and sometimes criminal emotion when Liberals, Democrats or minorities, but only indignation when directed at the conservative, Republican or white men.Mean spirited-A cliché, Liberals, Democrats and other class Wafarists is used to describe Republican and conservative who Honorable but complex reasons for their opposition to facially generous liberal policy proposals. NAZI- Has A particularly loaded used to describe the left to anyone to disagree with a liberal and all Republicans, a good chance choice to high office to win phonetic.Tags: Opinion · Policy

Here one of the entries I found everything you know about the immorality and possible criminal liability of the site (the emphasis is me) to a new site called IRS Doghouse, that tells you:

IRS employee name: Mr. [I removed the name] employee position: tax compliance officer characteristics: antagonistic, arrogant, was a government employee "Too long", furniture, can't understand a word he / she says, bypassing proxy's authority, clueless, "Cop" like mentality delights in other's misery, Dictatorial, hard to work with, intimacy file, vindictive without common sense would if in private sector fired be hidden agenda has, ignorant, "Just of following orders" mentality, lazy, makes up rules as he / she goes along, nasty, retired (but didn't tell anybody) sadistic, tried remarkable information about: this guy is the largest Dummist asshole I've ever met in my life. I pray, he dies very, very soon!

Here's what Kay Bell, which I do every day with my morning cup Java read about the Web site says:

While most visitors to the site probably get complaints about federal tax agency log staff IRS Doghouse welcomes both positive and negative reviews.

Can an IRS employees for knowledgeable as helpful, fair, with common sense and give to reward the taxpayer or tax per the benefit of the doubt.

If back to bite you, warlike, want IRS Doghouse can employees for such actions as antagonistic, arrogant, seem to inspire misery in the taxpayers and fall into one "just following orders" to quote mentality.

Next to the checkbox decisions have the option "remarkable details of the case and/or dealings" included with the IRS deal

What is IRS Doghouse unwelcome extreme profanity, hateful comments and threats. Such posts, notes the site be removed.

I dont care what this site is for people who want to defame co-sponsored the doghouse who say site owners without a shred of proof that the substance of their demands are met. Think about it. Why else would damn that thing call a dog house?

My guess is that the Web site either a Wackjob is owned by tax of protesters, a disgruntled tax cheat, checked and hit with a large tax, penalties and interest or Wesley Snipes.

Scratch the last one. Snipes is not smart enough to build a website.

Kay says what necessary, submit a complaint:

You will need your name or e-Mail comment to leave. The site invites you to a nickname to create an IRS employee rating post.

It does, but want to know whether a tax professional or just plain old Jane and Jack taxpayer.

Report on your experiences with an IRS employee you upstream and need of the employee's last name will name and its or your position within the Agency.

Here's hoping that IRS Doghouse this upcoming tax season gets more five bones reports as bad. But what can your experience with the IRS employees at least you now share.

I'm not blind defender of the IRS had more than my share of encounters with incompetent, arrogant and malicious service staff, but this site is dangerous.

Allow people to anonymously defame others without having an opportunity to defend themselves, the other vile and immoral. The Kennel owners know that people can and make false claims about IRS agents just because these agents monitoring are you or try collecting a debt you owe to the Government. You do not care. The nastier and juicier the charge more for your Web site traffic.

IRS Doghouse encouraged people, to prove that you had ever no contact with those employees that the charges you make through those employees are IRS employees without are met or that you make these claims for personal, not IRS relating to defame reasons.¹

This website is not long.

Footnotes:

¹ It is beyond the pale, imagine a spouse of an IRS agent by a divorce is a nasty, false and defamatory comment on his wife IRS employees leave?

CPA Charles j. Reichert write for the journal of accountancy says, that the tax court in James p. and Joan E. Kennedy v. Commissioner, TC memo 2010 206, decided that in some has cases a sale of business assets ordinary rather than capital gain income (emphasis added) generates:

The Tax Court held that payments is a taxable person from the sale of his consulting business, he as long-term capital gain instead should be taxed from his goodwill as ordinary income reported. It instead of the purchase contract, which reserved amounts to the taxpayer as business or goodwill and to its wholly-owned company for future consulting services and its client list were not based on economic realities but rather were determined to minimize taxes.

If a taxpayer sells a business in what its or your personal relations with customers/clients are important to the purchasing entity and after the sale of busy is that the entity arises the question of the taxpayer received payments for taxpayers future services or the taxpayer's business or goodwill. For goodwill performance capital income during payments received for services result in ordinary income amounts received. The existence of the business or goodwill is a question of fact that determines on a case by case basis. See Butler v. Commissioner, 46 TC 280.

Was James p. the sole shareholder of his benefits consulting business, KCG International Inc., in addition to the one being made his two full-time employees. In the year 2000 offered Mack & Parker Inc. (M & P) to buy the consulting business and as a consultant to join Kennedy M & P. M & p Kennedy offered a percentage of the annual revenue from KCG clients over the next five years. Later in the year 2000 the parties executed a definitive purchase and sale agreement, the a goodwill agreement Consulting was agreement and an asset purchase agreement.

Due to the agreement Kennedy work would, services without salary for M & P continues to former customers for the next five years, after which he planned to retire. Also, Kennedy would be by virtue of the agreements and KCG compete with M & P for five years. M & p would a flat fee amounting to $10,000 KCG and annual payments to KCG and Kennedy for five years. Annual payments would depend on revenue from Kennedy's former clients receive and were assigned 75% Kennedy in exchange for the "personal goodwill" associated with its customer relations, know-how and his promise not to compete or otherwise independently engage consulting in employee benefits be. The remaining 25% Agreement KCG was assigned to its client list and Noncompete. After 18 months of work under this arrangement Kennedy felt, undercompensated and negotiated a salary in addition to the payments

In accordance with the contract of sale Kennedy received $176,100 and $32,758 M & P in 2001 and 2002 respectively and lots as long-term goodwill to the joint capital gain from the sale of the business or returns he and his wife filed reported. Kennedy had capital losses that have offset to do gain nothing from the 2002 and all but win $2,442 of 2001.

The IRS recharacterized the capital gains in two years as ordinary income and rated defects and accuracy-related penalties amounting to $87,989 against Kennedy and his wife on their joint returns. The Kennedys petitioning the tax court for relief.

The Kennedys argued that the tax court in Martin ice co. v. Commissioner, 110 keeps TC 189, controlled and payments to Kennedy on goodwill were he owned. Martin, the Court considers, receive payments from sole partner of a company for its supermarket relations and distribution rights were owned by him, the company is missing any agreement that transfer these rights to the company. The Court declared however, his participation in Martin Kennedy, were not applied because Martin the Court only decided whether the payments to the company were taxable persons and not handled, was whether the payments for the rights were ordinary income or capital gain for the shareholder.

In this case the Court found that the payments that were received for goodwill as worked for M & P for five years from Kennedy got little compensation for his services for 18 months and agreed not to compete with M and p in the five years. The Court stated that it don't need to payments for Kennedy's services as well as for his promise to compete because both ordinary income were not distinguish those. In addition, the Court considers the payments were subjected to self-employment tax. However, the Court granted the penalties, the establishment of the Kennedys had provided accurate and complete information to their long-term CPA tax preparer and rely on his professional advice.

This is an interesting, and I think correctly, which further clarified the need for small business owners control lawyers have experienced judgment or CPA negotiate accompanying their companies.

Kennedy agreed to work for the new owners for another five years without a paycheck and was actually for 18 months that it is reasonable to accept that part of otherwise purchase price really compensation for his services to.

Maybe I am Monday morning quarterbacking, but my guess is that structured business in a way that could have had both met economic realities and resulted in capital gains rather than ordinary income treatment for Kennedy.

The New York Times reported that Mega Millionaire Larry David Seinfeld fame can contain his excitement over the extension of the Bush tax cuts:

There is a God! It passed! The Bush tax cuts were extended two years for the upper hound tar, of which I proudly thank one am very much you. I am the last person in the world I would like to next to his, but I'm beside me! This is a life-changer, I tell you. A life changer!

To begin with, I was planning a trip to Cabo with my kids for Christmas vacation. We went to fly coach, but now am with the money I save in taxes, I am going to splurge and bump me up to the first class. First class! Someone told me that serve warm nuts up there and call "Mister." I could be off the plane!

I also call the hotel and another room to get so I don't have to sleep a cot in the kids room. Don't get me wrong, I love a good bed for children available. The problem is, they tend to, take much space, and it is always a little harder in my advancing years to fold it up and drag it in the closet. I think I would do it if I had but you know what? I don't! With this windfall coming my way. Now I get my own room with King size bed have. And who knows maybe I'll some fancy mineral water from the minibar. This is shaping up to the best vacation, I have had in the year.

When I get home, thanks to the great compromise, the first is what, I will do, to get a flat-screen TV. Finally I can from the 20-inch Zenith with the rabbit ears, I take from my parents, inherited when she died. The reception is horrible, and I'm tired of going out to bars, everytime I want to watch a game. Last month, the antenna broke and I tried to improvise me with a metal hanger and liquidation cutting. Every time I see that scabs, I say to myself, "If God wants this Bush tax cuts be restored, I'm going to buy a new TV." Well, guess what? You have been!

It is a blessing for my health to be. After years of desire I'll be finally to make blueberries you. Did have a lot of antioxidants to prevent the cancer? Cancer! This tax cut which just might save my life. Who said Republicans support not health care? I'm going to have the blueberries with my cereal and I speak not special k. Those days are over. There is nothing more than real Granola from now on. The way the man in the plastic bins in health food stores. Someone has said "Organic"?

The only problem is if God forbid, tax cuts have lifted over two years, as I ever go back to special K and go bananas? Well, I smoke to stop, so I'm sure that if push came to shove I could muster the will, get Granola and blueberries. Of course, I accepted, with the money I made it from the Seinfeld syndication store, is I probably could still eat Granola with blueberries, but we hope that it does not happen.

Life was good and now it's even better. Thank you, Republican. And a special thanks to President Obama and the Democrats. I didn't know you cared.

Risk of sound like a broken record rate I hereby Mr David, to check where he can some his prey of the Federal Government donations Seinfeld from this website.

After all, because he doesn't think he deserves the reduction of taxes, wouldn't it immoral to keep?

Tags: Policy of taxation · Tax humor · Tax policy

Paul Bonner of the of accountancy provide journal reports said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, where the service would probably exemption from testing and training for nonsigning tax practitioners work under the supervision of a CPA or other State taxes authorized practitioners such as for example a lawyer or agent in a CPA or other professional company enrolled proposed:

Shulman made the prediction in his keynote speech at the AICPA's national tax Conference in Washington, he paid other changes to the new regulatory framework for all the tax described schedule displays and its deployment – some like the nonsigning conditioner relief in response to the Institute's concerns about the plan.

"I'm very sympathetic the argument that the rules for people who have met a higher standard of professional should be flexible," said Shulman. "Therefore it is very likely that we are implementing the new rules and procedures be some relief for testing and training" for nonsigning practitioners, the agent registered under the supervision of a CPA or lawyer. Edward Charles, AICPA Vice President taxation, said such a change would be welcome.

"I am very pleased with this development," said Karl. "It recognizes that CPA and CPA firms shall be already a strong and long-standing regulatory system." State-authorized tax practitioners, including CPA, are already exempt from the test and training requirements.

This is of course practical sense. The rules regulating both Auditors and lawyers require proper monitoring of employee personnel. Every month I in the Florida Bar News about a lawyer has sanctioned failed read to monitor its employees.

Tags: News · Regulation tax statement

It takes a heavy set of balls for an actor whose most important Errungenschaft in Matt Damon's life is best friend, other of is to blame too much.

Here's the latest howler from Newsbusters:

Click Tuesday's Morning Edition was the sale of his new film about corporate layoffs, company men, actor Ben Affleck and anchorman Steve INSKEEP carefully led the left actors on a soapbox to talk about the immorality of American capitalism and financiers who do nothing but "Money move back and forth":

INSKEEP: There is a line in the company that stays with me. Tommy Lee Jones is a corporate boardroom. Someone else at the Concierge Desk is your plans to dismiss, discuss a bunch of workers. And almost all the workers to be fired are older that could be construed as false or illegal. Someone at the table says: "Oh, no." "This is passed legal control." And Jones responds: "I was a little higher standard than that always thought."

Monkey leak: Speaks feelings about our country so perfectly to the people. It is through as it is simply, or people who like can let those who go if you can get away with it, that it right or wrong is no deeper meaning. Banks should not - people should not make such a huge profit off money move back and forth. And CEOs' pay should be 200 times the average worker. It used by nine times.

Michelle Malkin says it all in your perfectly titled post heh: actor, the made $12.5 million for "Gigli" says corporate CEOs are much paid:

Let us Gigli, disastrous film throw $12.5 million to make, receive the mixture and use a lower figure for comparison the Affleck. Affleck allegedly earned a paltry $10 million for the sum of all fears.

Viewing a other "average worker" in this field. The median salary for a camera operator in the television and film in Los Angeles for example is according to salary.com just over $80,000 per year.

Affleck makes in the vicinity of 125 times more than that on a movie. Factor in a whole year and earned it the "average worker" probably close to 500 times in its industry - possibly much more.

Before we begin, regulation CEO numbers, we should begin may with the actors. Hollywood links creeping socialism like the idea only as long as it any further West than San Bernardino cringe not.

Be Michelle is married?

Tags: News · Policy · Satire

The associated press reported that the IRS is strengthening and extending his tax returns audit program:

The IRS makes it a bit risky to cheat your taxes.

The tax agency increases the number of returns that it almost 11 percent this year examined show statistics released Wednesday. Wealthy taxpayers and companies were most likely be targeted.

The IRS examined more than individual is 1.58 million during the financial year ended in September of 1.43 million the year before.

"We saw increase individual audits, reach the highest rate in the last ten years," said Steve Miller, IRS Deputy Commissioner for services and enforcement. "The end result shows enforcement revenue $57 billion to almost 18 percent over the previous year exceeded."

Total were a little more than 1 percent of the individual, either by post or personally checked. The IRS monitors more than 8 percent of returns with earning over $1 million.

Taxpayer filed nearly 143 million returns, including those of individuals and married couples. Almost 389,000 taxpayers reported income of $1 million or higher.

Corporate audits decreased slightly less than 1 percent. But there was a 7 percent increase in the number of audits of companies with $ 10 million or more in assets.

Now, more than ever is important, that the taxpayer qualified, experienced tax practitioners prepare your tax returns rent. And remember, if a would-be preparer over boasts refunds of his ability to get its customers to make a b-line for the door and not look back. He is almost certainly hairdressing is numbers on its customers and that is an invitation to an IRS audit.

Tags: IRS audits · IRS penalties · IRS procedures · Individual control · Tax of crimes

In July I have proposed that LeBron James characters with the Miami Heat tax reasons.

Today, Texas writes Cowgirl Kay Bell (I think Debra winger in urban cowboy) on an another Mega-Millionaire professional athletes, who can choose its next team based on tax considerations:

Texas baseball fans, or at least those who follow the American League champion Texas Rangers, you are anxious waiting for the decision of pitcher Cliff Lee, which team the uniform he next year... will bear.

By staying in Texas, [Cliff] Lee would 81 home games in Arlington and three more in Houston while inter-league game you play against the Astros.

Owes for these 84 games he would not state taxes since Texas State has no income tax.

Sure, he would have to pass something money to other States with income taxes if you Rangers road trips. But tax amount for the number of days worked in the State would be prorated.

But if Lee signed with the Yankees and lived in New York for at least 183 days a year, he would a 9 percent numbers State income tax. He would pay more taxes when he lived in the Big Apple.

Or notes of the New York Times, Lee could life outside the Empire State. He would pay the same tax rate if in New Jersey, but something lived, if he and his family are in neighboring Connecticut with 6.5 percent income tax rate.

Important are the taxes to Lee? Safely.

Become important enough to influence his team choice? Perhaps.

I'm sure the Yankees fit to account for the expropriations Lee's offer by city and State control in New York will have to pay but because procurement rules attribute income he turns endorsements and commercials, the State of Texas (provided he makes its home Texas), he should stay right where he is to protect the income from these ridiculous New York taxes.

Tags: State taxes

Professor Maule has to my blog post title card, the us create your tax cuts jobs responds and we will give your tax cuts.

Followed below my questions and assertions in blockquotes by Professor's answers.

My question:

"Is and if he really thinks the rich to much wealth and income inequality should accumulate, are a serious problem, why not just say rather than the motives defame those of us who do not believe his way to take a few intellectual elites to the authority decide how wealth distributes?"

Maule's reply:

Obama's tax plan is to increase taxes for individuals with income of over $250,000. Most Americans in this category fall and 95 percent are unaffected by this particular proposal. Americans in this category are paying taxes to lower prices than you paid a decade ago.

The theory was that reduction of prices on the rich benefits not only for the rich, but would generate for everyone else. This "trickle down" theory turned out to be a failed experiment.

All that was passed down the economic pain America caused the capitalist casino players. Technically, Obama beats revocation of tax cuts for the rich. They had their chance. It failed, other than the wealthy widen more prosperous, the smaller middle class and the gap between the owning and have-nots.

My assertion:

"[Professor Maule] assumes that we are all either con artists, money grabber düpierten followers."

Maule's response:

I caused by those guidelines open for some other reasonable characterization to describe someone who advocates failed failed policies as a solution to a problem. Tax cuts for the rich, if so wonderful would not leave cocoons have economy of the nation. Tried several times, and the overwhelming majority of Americans are worse than they were ten years ago.

No, I don't think that a cheater or a money grabber is. Must I believe he has deceived been? Yes, he exposed was, and has absorbed theories and concepts, a series of fiscal measures which have not worked to defend.

Much if the tax cut ideas floated first many years ago, to many people's surprise, I support the idea not damage to try something that had not been tried on the basis that it would. I defended the result the tax cuts for the rich is proportionally more than tax cuts for which not enough, because the rich subject to proportionally higher rates were. After approach failed the tax cut and then was tried, and could not again and again, I re-evaluated the experiment, and came to the conclusion that it had taught the nation it was something that did not work.

For some reason, some people just want someone's ideas give a chance. Go far, can hang who are advocates tax cut to me evidence that you desperately and ready mislead whomever you are in your failed systems draw to the failed attempt. If you not are con deceived artist, money grabber or people that, what are you?

Professor by one of my readers, Knox Marlow Maule also responded to an assertion, made.

Knox Marlow assertion:

I think [Professor Maule] perfectly articulates the left Redistributionists views. Fortunately, I believe there is moderate on the left and the right who are willing to compromise without class warfare questions (again, I will show on the Simpson Bowles and Domenici Rivlin proposals).

Maule's observation:

Last week the outpouring has the "It's socialism" in response to the proposal to revoke tax cuts unabated adopted for those with high-level incomes continue. For example, on GetLiberty that assertion is stretched, the "Barack Obama is a Socialist, believes in from the owning take and give the have nots." It is unclear whether this claim claims Obama is a Socialist because he "believes in the owning take and give, the have nots" or if the claim Obama is a Socialist WHO "believes in from the owning take and give, the have nots." The latter interpretation indicate that it Socialists, who in faith "from the owning take and give the have nots." There may be such Socialists, but if they exist, are not on my radar.

What is the assertion disturbing is former interpreting the intent must be a test, the latter interpretation makes no sense. The idea that believe in taking from the owning and allow the have nots makes a person who is a Socialist that almost every President elected since 1913, and almost everyone since that time is selected or was Socialist.

How I develop that reading GetLiberty assertion? The federal income tax usually takes some of the owning and distributes the have nots, although in recent years also have it haves has less and more to the already. Since 1913, the Executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government adopted, changed and managed a progressive federal income tax.

The idea that Obama or someone else support is seen in this light, the progressive federal income tax, a Socialist a total canard has a misleading sound bite designed to mislead those that emotionally predisposition to taxation are dislike.

The debate continues. Stay tuned.

Tags: Opinion · Policy of taxation · Tax policy