Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - hjfklmor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
At this point this plan is still hypothetical, because my dong has been modded to shoot blanks. I’d have to return it to factory settings.
I don’t see why you couldn’t adopt a gaggle of frozen children.

Now we are throwing in the adoption credit. Some real tax planning happening in here.

2
I think all your tax breaks mentioned above are federal, Pete.
If the state issues a birth certificate I wonder if the Feds have to acknowledge it as a child?

Get a DOB and SSN and I say shoot your shot.

3
*sigh* There's the "reasonable" part, which is a so-called objective standard based on the legal fiction of the Reasonable Man. And then there's the subjective part, which relates to the harm perceived by a person. You put them both together, and BOOM, you have an objective-subjective test.

Any legal textbook could have told us that.

and yet, you asked.

4
Why didn't he just shut the hell up and let Tang's statement stand on its own?

Not that it was probably intentional but this feels like its undermining Tang's statement. Just let it go if you can't give details. It's not helping.

Yeah UP Dick Lint should have let it go, but this points to he's under pressure from people (donors) with means to make his job miserable. This does nothing to protect Tomlin, but only drives speculation of what dreadful thing he must have done for a subsequent minor incident to get him suspended for the bb team (which does have financial considerations, since I assume Tomlin's NIL requires him to be on the team).
lol, i don't think any of the donors are or were pushing for tomlin's punishment or forcing linton to do anything because that wouldn't make any sense.  ridiculous suggestion imo.

Point wasn't that donors were calling for punishment, but that they were upset UP took action on a decision that should have be left to AD and Tang and that is why Linton felt compelled to release the statement. JFC
gotcha.  i misunderstood.  but even if that were true and he was feeling pressure from donors (and I'm sure he is), the statement is still a wild miscalculation that did more harm than good.  this was going to blow over after the Tang video.  all the statement did was just kickstart another round of people getting pissed off again.

the handling of this entire situation has been incompetent from the university's side.

Exactly. The majority of people don't know who the hell the university president is or what he does, and they would have gone right back to not knowing. All he had to do was shut the hell up and this would have gone away.

We look like dumbasses who don't communicate between the university and athletics, which I'm starting to think is probably very accurate.

5
Why didn't he just shut the hell up and let Tang's statement stand on its own?

Not that it was probably intentional but this feels like its undermining Tang's statement. Just let it go if you can't give details. It's not helping.

So, you were on board with Tang before, but not now? Maybe Tang's message wasn't as good as we thought it was.

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding but I am on board with Tang. I thought his statement was perfect and acted as a great final word. Then Dick Lint decides to chime in twelve hours later.

6
Why didn't he just shut the hell up and let Tang's statement stand on its own?

Not that it was probably intentional but this feels like its undermining Tang's statement. Just let it go if you can't give details. It's not helping.

8
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Another school shooting
« on: May 17, 2022, 04:23:04 PM »
he was a racist who had access to assault weapons

Nah he was just predisposed to racism and shooting people.

9
Essentially Flyertalk / Re: Taxes
« on: March 31, 2022, 05:01:26 PM »
I got an extension last year to give us time to sort through mrstdaver’s business stuff.  Probably gonna do it again.  Really easy for any of you procrastinators out there.

It is an extension of time to file, not an extension of time to pay. Just a head's up for any :kstategrad: out there looking to put off that bill due in a few weeks.

10
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Possible WW3 thread
« on: February 26, 2022, 08:06:49 AM »
I sincerely hope you are GE'ing but at this point I think you are just rough ridin' insane.

12
Courts rule that Rachel Maddow is a hyperbolic, chronic liar and that nothing she she says should be construed as being factual.

"Copycat"

Sydney Powell
While it’s certainly appropriate to dub Rachel Maddow a Prog-Lib go to a Russophobe sociopathic pathological liar.  The courts sadly granted her permission to continue to be a ProgFascist propagandist believed daily by ProgFadcist/#blueanon types numbering in the millions.  With free reign to attack her political enemies in any manner she see’s fit.  Because the courts say that allegedly everyone already knows that she’s a hyper partisan pathological liar (except for millions of #blueanon types).  So it’s okay. 

Note that no conservatives are demanding equal time, boycotting and canceling.  At least not that I’ve seen. 

Note that similar celebrities on the other side of the aisle are not granted the same leeway.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

13
First chip scheduled for Tuesday. It is essentially an open door policy at the Sedgwick County Extension Office in ICT. Live or work in SG, not bothering to check if you otherwise qualify.

14
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Economics Of The Election
« on: December 18, 2020, 01:00:05 PM »
Interesting, so how are the loans being treated right now then, is it baked into the Revenue Rulings?

Are they deductible to decrease tax burden for employers and without discretion on the personal income of the owner/employer and some party is telling the IRS to kick rocks?

Technically speaking very few people have filed a tax return with PPP forgiveness on it. Several trade groups are telling the IRS to kick rocks and it would appear that Congress is as well.


Not that this will happen, but I assume this is in the spirit of the opinion on the deduction topic that kicked this off, wonder what the reaction would be if the median income of a US worker is deemed to be allowed to be deducted (~36k USD), or some multiple like 2x. I don't know for certain, but I think the overall point being made in that article was that the loans were to keep employees with a paycheck, but not necessarily to ensure an owner's wage was fully secure (ie the 1%er comment).

I think we may be talking past each other here on the mechanics of how this all works. The employee's wage is only being deducted once.

Business received the PPP funds as cash and paid their fixed costs (or were supposed to) as normal - payroll or rent is still being only deducted once hopefully as if it were a normal year. The idea being that instead of sending that cash back to the bank in the form of repayments the loan is forgiven. Not to get any further in the weeds than I already have but this is normally called forgiveness of debt income. This income, if taxable, would offset payroll costs so if this was a typical year you would have business owners having a higher taxable income than normal.

The idea for not making the forgiveness taxable is that we are not punishing business owners for accepting the loans and keeping their workers hired. If the forgiveness is taxable they would have been wiser to lay off those workers (from a practical standpoint.. not a moral one).

Again this is all great in theory but there was no real means testing on PPP loans and they were abused all over the place, but they also helped millions of businesses! The opinion of the article you linked seemed to be that high net worth individuals used it to pay themselves, which is absolutely possible and probable, but like the stimulus checks sometimes you have to open yourself up to that risk in the spirit of urgency and just hope you helped more small businesses than abusers of the system. Making it taxable punishes the abusers, but also the small businesses.

15
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Economics Of The Election
« on: December 18, 2020, 11:54:32 AM »
I can see hjfklmor becoming the Andy Dufresne of this here shawshank prison

Much like the real mom of steve dave, I would have a witty retort if I could figure out how to embed a rough ridin' gif

16
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Economics Of The Election
« on: December 18, 2020, 11:49:26 AM »
and hjfklmor explodes into my awareness as possibly being my mom

Well if your mother is a CPA then mods please change my name to mom of steve dave.
Hell yeah!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TIA on the new name

17
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Economics Of The Election
« on: December 18, 2020, 11:48:59 AM »
The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.

If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.

They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.

Is there anything clear on how PPP loan distributions to partners in a partnership should be treated and be reported on a partner's K-1?

You got a PPP loan and distributed the funds to yourself instead of paying rent, payroll, etc.? That is beyond the scope of this here blog.

18
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Economics Of The Election
« on: December 18, 2020, 11:46:07 AM »
Interesting, so how are the loans being treated right now then, is it baked into the Revenue Rulings?

Are they deductible to decrease tax burden for employers and without discretion on the personal income of the owner/employer and some party is telling the IRS to kick rocks?

Technically speaking very few people have filed a tax return with PPP forgiveness on it. Several trade groups are telling the IRS to kick rocks and it would appear that Congress is as well.

19
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Economics Of The Election
« on: December 18, 2020, 08:57:28 AM »
and hjfklmor explodes into my awareness as possibly being my mom

Well if your mother is a CPA then mods please change my name to mom of steve dave.

20
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Economics Of The Election
« on: December 17, 2020, 05:54:00 PM »
The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.

If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.

They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.

21
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Economics Of The Election
« on: December 17, 2020, 02:20:57 PM »
Quote
ONE GIANT LOOPHOLE IN COVID BILL? — Brookings’ senior fellow Adam Looney: “Congress is on the verge of giving a $120 billion windfall to the top 1 percent in its pending COVID relief bill. It shouldn’t do that. Tucked into the bill is a provision to allow businesses to deduct expenses that were paid for by the government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

“Normally, a business owner may deduct only expenses they actually paid for. … Passing legislation to allow businesses to pay their expenses with taxpayer-provided PPP funds and then to deduct those expenses against their own taxes would be a windfall to high-income business owners—a windfall that would exceed the amounts that Congress is considering in unemployment insurance, rental assistance, food aid, or healthcare.”

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/12/17/dont-celebrate-the-covid-deal-too-much-792374

This isn't a loophole.. If Congress intended for the PPP loans to be forgiven tax-free, you need to be able to deduct these expenses. Whether that forgiveness should be tax-free is another matter but this is just matching the intent within the CARES Act.

22
Greenwood, and it's still a shitty county don't worry.

Nice work whatever non shitty county that is in KS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

23
https://twitter.com/SecNorman/status/1324785506668957697?s=20

Always good to have the KDHE Secretary use "terrifying."  :frown:

24
BTW, I don't believe him when he says he won't accept the term. He could have just resigned.

I'll grant you that he's a scumbag and perfectly capable of that but what's the rule for replacing him if he resigns?  Was he just trying to hold the seat for another Republican?

That's the theory, yes. He felt as if he resigned the republicans would have lost the election, but he still would have remained on the ballot.

Aside from being incredibly disappointed in his district for reelecting him, it's complete bullshit that the party can just pick whoever they want as replacement now that he stayed on and won.

25
I feel like we could have an entire thread dedicated to O'Donnell. The dude is a humongous piece of crap.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9