Re: Whilst On The Road...

Pete Dashwood wrote:

> Richard is an easy target. :-)

I hope you are just .

> Anyone who would turn a colleague (or anyone else) in to the IRS (no matte
r
> how much you disliked them) is beneath contempt in my book.

It seemed to me that it wasn't about turning him in, it was about
showing RW that he was wrong. Probably though RW is still telling the
IRS that they are wrong and only RW can interpret this correctly.

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1147548423.008593.95220@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
>
> I hope you are just .

Yes, <blushes again> I was , and Skippy also pointed it out. Sorry
Richard... do not construe this as a Freudian slip or anything against you.
You are certainly NOT an easy target (for anyone) and, unlike many of
Robert's posts here, yours are usually well worth reading.
> 
>
> It seemed to me that it wasn't about turning him in, it was about
> showing RW that he was wrong. Probably though RW is still telling the
> IRS that they are wrong and only RW can interpret this correctly.

The way I read it, they had an argument about it and Robert, in his usual
way, would not accept that he may have been mistaken. The colleague, in
support of his argument, then phoned the IRS to get clarification. ALL of
that is perfectly legitimate in my book. It is simply using an authoritative
source to support an argued position. It was AFTER this action still failed
to convince Robert (surprise, surprise) that the other party then apparently
dobbed him in. I find that reprehensible.

It was only an argument, and no matter how irritating someone is, the IRS
are the enemies of all of us :-)

I would love to be a fly on the wall when Robert makes his case to the
IRS... :-)

Pete.

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> <snip> It was AFTER this action still failed
> to convince Robert (surprise, surprise) that the other party then apparent
ly
> dobbed him in. I find that reprehensible.
>



Well, you subscribe to the idea of OMERTA, then.  In your practice, does
this apply to criminal matters generally or just to dealing with
government?

PL

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4cn6m7F16mun1U1@individual.net...
>
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1147548423.008593.95220@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... 
[snip] 

Or, Mr Plinston, it may be that Mr Wagner has never had
to explain his position to the IRS.

> The way I read it, they had an argument about it and Robert, in his usual
> way, would not accept that he may have been mistaken.

Or, Mr Wagner understands the applicable IRS regulations
and controls his circumstances to stay within certain of those
regulations, while his detractor may not understand how to
do the same. I recall Mr Wagner having discussed his position
previously and, from what I recall and with a bit of reading
of IRS Publication 17, his position seems defensable. (The
key seems to be the definition of 'temporary'. Per diem seems
to be tied to 'temporary'. Remain 'temporary' and retain per
diem. Since I am neither qualified to give tax advice nor do
I have all the facts, this is as close as I dare go.)

> The colleague, in
> support of his argument, then phoned the IRS to get clarification. ALL of
> that is perfectly legitimate in my book. It is simply using an
authoritative
> source to support an argued position.

As I see it, the colleague, possibly without full knowledge
of Mr Wagner's circumstances, phoned the IRS to get
clarification about what that colleague understood.
Mr Dashwood, this seems to be a case where 'argument
from authority' may have led to an 'improved
misunderstanding'. That is, neither you nor I can know
that the colleague actually understood Mr Wagner's
circumstances, which raises the question of whether the
phone call for clarification was 'legitimate'.

> It was AFTER this action still failed
> to convince Robert (surprise, surprise) that the other party then
apparently
> dobbed him in. I find that reprehensible.

I agree with you on this point; but wonder why
Mr Wagner should have been convinced.

> It was only an argument, and no matter how irritating someone is, the IRS
> are the enemies of all of us :-)

And disagree with your comment about the IRS. But
the IRS has until August 15, 2006, to initiate a claim
against me for non-payment of certain taxes for 2002
so I may yet find reason to change my mind. <g>
[I did file IRS Form 8275-R to explain why I 'declined'
to pay the taxes. That is what the rules require to avoid
certain penalties. I then had to overcome fear of the
IRS otherwise the anxiety would have been too much
for me to handle.]

> I would love to be a fly on the wall when Robert makes his case to the
> IRS... :-)

As I recall from his earlier statements, Mr Wagner, has been
doing the same thing with his taxes for years. If this is correct,
the IRS has had several oppurtunities to raise the issue
previously, so, Mr Dashwood, don't become a fly (or hold
your breath) waiting for it. <g>

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:4467469D.2B963A7D@mts.net...
> Pete Dashwood wrote: 
>
>
>
> Well, you subscribe to the idea of OMERTA, then.  In your practice, does
> this apply to criminal matters generally or just to dealing with
> government?
>
> PL
>
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about, so can't say whether I
subscribe to it or not.

Pete.

"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
news:126eler1021f8b1@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:4cn6m7F16mun1U1@individual.net... 
> [snip] 
>
> Or, Mr Plinston, it may be that Mr Wagner has never had
> to explain his position to the IRS.
> 
>
> Or, Mr Wagner understands the applicable IRS regulations
> and controls his circumstances to stay within certain of those
> regulations, while his detractor may not understand how to
> do the same. I recall Mr Wagner having discussed his position
> previously and, from what I recall and with a bit of reading
> of IRS Publication 17, his position seems defensable. (The
> key seems to be the definition of 'temporary'. Per diem seems
> to be tied to 'temporary'. Remain 'temporary' and retain per
> diem. Since I am neither qualified to give tax advice nor do
> I have all the facts, this is as close as I dare go.)
> 
> authoritative 
>
> As I see it, the colleague, possibly without full knowledge
> of Mr Wagner's circumstances, phoned the IRS to get
> clarification about what that colleague understood.
> Mr Dashwood, this seems to be a case where 'argument
> from authority' may have led to an 'improved
> misunderstanding'. That is, neither you nor I can know
> that the colleague actually understood Mr Wagner's
> circumstances, which raises the question of whether the
> phone call for clarification was 'legitimate'.
>

Yes, I take your point. It was about as valid an attempt as any argument
from authority...  Sometimes, if one is intending to use this doubtful
rhetorical device, one needs to check exactly what the authority one
proposes to quote has to say on the subject :-) But I thnk you are right
that in this case, the only person who could really know the details was
Robert.
 
> apparently 
>
> I agree with you on this point; but wonder why
> Mr Wagner should have been convinced.
> 
>
> And disagree with your comment about the IRS. But
> the IRS has until August 15, 2006, to initiate a claim
> against me for non-payment of certain taxes for 2002
> so I may yet find reason to change my mind. <g>
> [I did file IRS Form 8275-R to explain why I 'declined'
> to pay the taxes. That is what the rules require to avoid
> certain penalties. I then had to overcome fear of the
> IRS otherwise the anxiety would have been too much
> for me to handle.]
> 
>
> As I recall from his earlier statements, Mr Wagner, has been
> doing the same thing with his taxes for years. If this is correct,
> the IRS has had several oppurtunities to raise the issue
> previously, so, Mr Dashwood, don't become a fly (or hold
> your breath) waiting for it. <g>
>

I wish him luck... as I would wish anyone doing the same... :-)

Pete.