1
Essentially Flyertalk / Re: Things in Wichita that don't suck
« on: April 17, 2024, 11:38:32 AM »
I enjoyed how hard they worked to avoid saying the Stevens were investors, just the "owners of Genesis Health Clubs."
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.
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.
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?
*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.
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.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.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).
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
the handling of this entire situation has been incompetent from the university's side.
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.
he was a racist who had access to assault weapons
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.
Some people are easily taken in by rhetoric.
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.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
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.
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 can see hjfklmor becoming the Andy Dufresne of this here shawshank prison
Hell yeah!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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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?
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?
and hjfklmor explodes into my awareness as possibly being my mom
QuoteONE 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
Nice work whatever non shitty county that is in KS
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.