Fourth Obama nominee TAX CHEAT

[ProudUSC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hudson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
I believe in the old 80/20 rule. 80% are honest, 20% maybe not so much. I don't like fraud either, but I also don't like to generalize about people. You had a bad situation, but it doesn't mean that all immigrants are suspect. I hope you are able to discover this for yourself one day.

Put those babies outside for a few minutes - their temps will drop in no time - lol!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Proud,
I would be careful when defining tax fraud, or tax cheat. Not paying taxes is not considered cheating since the IRS has the innocent spouse rule, the injure spouse rule, payment arrangements, currently non collectible, and offer in compromise to assist people with their tax liabilities.

Tax fraud is very specific in the tax code and should remain that specific. But in the political rality, the definition changes as the wind changes. Remember Abranoff and Tom Delay. If you guessed they were also tax cheats, you won the big Kahuna. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Hudson,

I wasn't referring to tax cheats in my post. Sorry if it was misleading. I was addressing MIR's reference to fraudulent immigrants - that's all.

[a9b3h5]

[4now]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hudson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by a9b3h5:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hudson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by a9b3h5:
Ladies and Gentlemen - I present to you fourth TAX Cheat in the Obama Administration. I present Hilda Solis.

She joins the ranks of Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Killefer.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Two sources familiar with Hilda Solis’ confirmation process tells CNN the reason the committee vote on her nomination to be Labor Secretary was postponed today is because Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee did not know about her husband’s tax issues until two days ago, when they were approached by USA Today.

"We reviewed her tax returns, and her tax returns are in order," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday. "The story denotes that her husband had some issues with paying a business tax and, obviously, that taxes should be paid.

"[Solis] is not a partner in that business, so we're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes. Obviously, her husband, I think, has and should pay any taxes that he owes."

http://politicalticker.blogs.c...ut-solis-tax-issues/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, so the husband has tax issues, not her. And according to you, the woman should follow the man, not the other way around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa...I have never said a woman should follow a man. Show me the thread where I said so. Wasn't she aware of the situation of her husband's tax issues? Don't you think it is her obligation to make sure he follows the laws? Well she may not be a direct tax cheat but she is indirect accomplice in it. What do you think would have had happened once she was appointed? Full in favors? Most likely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
She would be responsible if she was a partner in in the business or if this was a married filing joint return. The problem is, and according to your article, she is NOT A PARTNER OF HIS COMPANY and this is NOT A MARRIED FILING JOINT RETURN.

She is not responsible nor may she not be held legally liable for her husband's problems. No court, no matter how conservative will do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It appears that Gibbs is deliberately trying t be misleading with power of suggestion. (that is what he is paid to do)

According the the newspaper reports, the couple did indeed file Married joint returns.

From what I have read, it appears that their federal return is in order. The problems seem to be with the state sales tax returns of her husband's auto repair business. These were the "other" unpaid state taxes, and other taxes related to her husband's business at a local level.

However , the local taxes may be relevant to Solis, and the state sales taxes may also if the husband took a deduction on his schedule C for the unpaid taxes, because Solis filed a joint personal return with her husband.


The husband does not have any excuse for unpaid state sales tax. Those notices are sent . repeatedly, along with the threat of a lein, that sometimes eventually will shut down a business. The penalties are huge, which of course he is complaining about.

Personally, If his auto repair business is alledgely only worth 50k-100k a year, there is not much excuse.. he is not very busy in this business.

It sounds to me like a case of disregard for the rules.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It appears that Gibbs is deliberately trying t be misleading with power of suggestion. (that is what he is paid to Nope
Yeh, and you appear to be reading in between the lines again. Imagine that.

[QUOTE]According the the newspaper reports, the couple did indeed file Married joint returns.

From what I have read, it appears that their federal return is in order. The problems seem to be with the state sales tax returns of her husband's auto repair business. These were the "other" unpaid state taxes, and other taxes related to her husband's business at a local level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh really, which one? Definitely nott he one that A9 posted. How about USA Today? Nope. not there. Or how about The Washington Post? Nope not there either.

I know, I know. These are biased newspaper articles even though it was USA Today that broke the story. Or how about the Los Angeles Times? Nope, not there either. Or how about <a href="http://onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=410768" target="_blank">here?[/UR

So, lets look at [URL=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/06/tax-problems-trip-up-obama-again-with-nominee-for-/]the Washington Times?</a> Nope, tis not there either? Nope. Not there.

Perhaps you are obfuscating the issue with a heritange Foundation's remark that said, "it is hard to believe Solis was not aware of the tax liens while she was profiting from her husband's business."

Well, that may or may not be the case. Depedns on those nasty little facts and circumstances that you appear to have trouble with. So, let me elucidate you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However , the local taxes may be relevant to Solis, and the state sales taxes may also if the husband took a deduction on his schedule C for the unpaid taxes, because Solis filed a joint personal return with her husband. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are making a big assumption here 4now. First, you are alluding that the Mr. Sayyed's tax form had sales taxes as part of a deduction. If we use Sch D as an example, the proper question would be whether Mr. Sayyed was using the cash method or the accrual method. Rev. Proc. 2001-10 for qualified individual, or Rev. Proc. 2002-9, qualifying business, would allow Mr. Sayyed to make the cash method of accounting on his Sch C for inventory. But hwether he used the accrual mehtod or the cash method, the <span class="ev_code_RED">income tax returns</span> are not in question here. It is the unpaid sales and property taxes on the business.

Again, if he is the sole proprietor, or sole owner, is she responsible for the business taxes? Under Californian state law, NO! It is separate property and the business, through the owner, is the only one responsible. And we aren not gong to how the business is organized. It will just make you look that much more foolish.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The husband does not have any excuse for unpaid state sales tax. Those notices are sent . repeatedly, along with the threat of a lein, that sometimes eventually will shut down a business. The penalties are huge, which of course he is complaining about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As you have pointed out when it was politically convenient, Mr. Sayyed is not being nominated. Is he? Are we now back to guilty by association. ron Pual would be so proud LOL.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Personally, If his auto repair business is alledgely only worth 50k-100k a year, there is not much excuse.. he is not very busy in this business.

It sounds to me like a case of disregard for the rules </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No one is saying whether he is busy or not. Again, the point should be why accuse the wife on her husband's business issue when she is not the owner. Even Davdah's wife has the same legal separation that Mrs. Solis has when it comes to these type of issues.

[4now]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hudson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It appears that Gibbs is deliberately trying t be misleading with power of suggestion. (that is what he is paid to Nope
Yeh, and you appear to be reading in between the lines again. Imagine that.

[QUOTE]According the the newspaper reports, the couple did indeed file Married joint returns.

From what I have read, it appears that their federal return is in order. The problems seem to be with the state sales tax returns of her husband's auto repair business. These were the "other" unpaid state taxes, and other taxes related to her husband's business at a local level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh really, which one? Definitely nott he one that A9 posted. How about USA Today? Nope. not there. Or how about The Washington Post? Nope not there either.

I know, I know. These are biased newspaper articles even though it was USA Today that broke the story. Or how about the Los Angeles Times? Nope, not there either. Or how about <a href="http://onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=410768" target="_blank">here?[/UR

So, lets look at [URL=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/06/tax-problems-trip-up-obama-again-with-nominee-for-/]the Washington Times?</a> Nope, tis not there either? Nope. Not there.

Perhaps you are obfuscating the issue with a heritange Foundation's remark that said, "it is hard to believe Solis was not aware of the tax liens while she was profiting from her husband's business."

Well, that may or may not be the case. Depedns on those nasty little facts and circumstances that you appear to have trouble with. So, let me elucidate you.


<span class="ev_code_RED">No.. Let me serve you some crow, the only thing that you elucidate is that crystal ball that seems to be your only source of news that almost always has you obfuscating. so read this ..</span>mainstream enuff 4ya

Let me give you a little excerpt:

Labor Pick's Husband Has Tax Problems
By SAM HANANEL,
WASHINGTON (Feb. 5) - Another White House Cabinet pick is dealing with questions about unpaid taxes, but White House officials insist the confirmation of Labor Secretary-nominee Hilda Solis is not in jeopardy.
A Senate committee vote on Solis' nomination was abruptly postponed on Thursday after it became known that her husband had unpaid tax liens on his California auto repair business that were only settled this week for about $6,400

While tax problems have dogged several of President Barack Obama's nominees — the latest forcing former Sen. Tom Daschle to withdraw his nomination as health secretary — administration officials say they are not blaming Solis for her husband's actions.
"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that Solis' <span class="ev_code_RED">own </span>tax returns "are in order."

She's not a partner in that business," Gibbs said. "So we're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes."
USA Today reported that Los Angeles County records showed 15 outstanding state and county tax liens totaling $7,630 against Sam Sayyad and his business, some outstanding for as long as 16 years.
Tommy Vietor, another White House spokesman, said Solis and Sayyad were unaware of the liens until asked about them this week.
Vietor said Solis — a Los Angles-area congresswoman — and her husband file personal income taxes jointly, but that Sayyad is the sole proprietor of the business and all tax communications about it go only to him at a separate business address.


<span class="ev_code_RED">Is that is crystal clear enough 4ya Huds? Her own is trying to suggest/imply that the couple filed mfs returns by this statement. after all you assumed so from your above post. </span>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However , the local taxes may be relevant to Solis, and the state sales taxes may also if the husband took a deduction on his schedule C for the unpaid taxes, because Solis filed a joint personal return with her husband. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are making a big assumption here 4now. First, you are alluding that the Mr. Sayyed's tax form had sales taxes as part of a deduction. If we use Sch D as an example, the proper question would be whether Mr. Sayyed was using the cash method or the accrual method. Rev. Proc. 2001-10 for qualified individual, or Rev. Proc. 2002-9, qualifying business, would allow Mr. Sayyed to make the cash method of accounting on his Sch C for inventory. But hwether he used the accrual mehtod or the cash method, the <span class="ev_code_RED">income tax returns</span> are not in question here. It is the unpaid sales and property taxes on the business.


<span class="ev_code_RED">This was addressed under "MAY". Purely hypothetical. I was not assuming anything. Either way accounting method used, if the numbers were inaccurate, it would affect the federal income tax returns, However, you are Obfuscating as usual. Im going to have to start calling you HudsOn O.</span>

Again, if he is the sole proprietor, or sole owner, is she responsible for the business taxes? Under Californian state law, NO! It is separate property and the business, through the owner, is the only one responsible. And we aren not gong to how the business is organized. It will just make you look that much more foolish.


<span class="ev_code_RED">HudsOn O. Obfuscating again I have not dealth with any Cal. State returns, but, most likely they filed a joint state tax return like the federal. There is not any disagreement about his, not her responsibility for the sales tax return and other local return. The point, which you fail to acknowledge is ...if those tax items were (mistakenly)reported as paid when the federal income tax was filed, (which would also impact the result of joint state return that was filed.0 THEN , if that were so,.. there COULD be additional taxes owed on the JOINT personal federal and state tax returns. This whole explanation was already made in the point above when the reference of MAY was used. You are the only person looking foolish here so far. 2 more quotes 2 go and Im aiming for 100%</span>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The husband does not have any excuse for unpaid state sales tax. Those notices are sent . repeatedly, along with the threat of a lein, that sometimes eventually will shut down a business. The penalties are huge, which of course he is complaining about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As you have pointed out when it was politically convenient, Mr. Sayyed is not being nominated. Is he? Are we now back to guilty by association. ron Pual would be so proud LOL.



<span class="ev_code_RED">Even better than RP... 1 Corinthians 15:33, which says “evil companionships corrupt good morals.” basically it means Watch your associations. Associations can say a lot about a person's attitude.
</span>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Personally, If his auto repair business is alledgely only worth 50k-100k a year, there is not much excuse.. he is not very busy in this business.

It sounds to me like a case of disregard for the rules </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No one is saying whether he is busy or not. Again, the point should be why accuse the wife on her husband's business issue when she is not the owner. Even Davdah's wife has the same legal separation that Mrs. Solis has when it comes to these type of issues.


<span class="ev_code_RED">Dvadah... henyh She is the wife and joint signer on a federal tax return that shows a sole prop return from her husband. She should be prudent enough to ask questions questions of her partner in life.about that business,,, just to make sure that things are in order in THEIR life where everything appears to be joint. As you saw, they had leins filed that resulted in income coming from both of them. If Solis had filed MFS, (as some spouses do based on how their spouses operate their business,)
then it would be a different story . I, personally am not looking for this type of person to hold that position.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No.. Let me serve you some crow, the only thing that you elucidate is that crystal ball that seems to be your only source of news that almost always has you obfuscating. so read this ..mainstream enuff 4ya </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
AOL is not mainstream?

Anyway, now that one news story has confirmed, or suggested, they do file joint tax returens, it stil reamains unclear whether the tax returns are correct or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is that is crystal clear enough 4ya Huds? Her own is trying to suggest/imply that the couple filed mfs returns by this statement. after all you assumed so from your above post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No dufus, it is not clear. It is your prerogative that this is what Mr. Gibbs saying, but your interpretation, no matter how loosely it is based on, no matter how logical, still does not supercede the fact that this is not known. And it is a possibility. However, it has coulded the issue even further. Again, it could mean that her onw taxes on a joint return were correct, which means they have verified through the investigative reports. That is the other possibility.

And even your own source does not clarify that she knew the existence of the tax problem when the same person said, but that Sayyad is the sole proprietor of the business and all tax communications about it go only to him at a separate business address.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This was addressed under "MAY". Purely hypothetical. I was not assuming anything. Either way accounting method used, if the numbers were inaccurate, it would affect the federal income tax returns, However, you are Obfuscating as usual. Im going to have to start calling you HudsOn O. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But the accounting method being used would determine if a improper deduction would have been made. If accrual based, it does not matter when the taxes are actually paid. However, if cash based, then the presumption is whether an improper deduction was takes, Remember, this is what A9 stated and what you are defending 4now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> HudsOn O. Obfuscating again 2hand I have not dealth with any Cal. State returns, but, most likely they filed a joint state tax return like the federal. There is not any disagreement about his, not her responsibility for the sales tax return and other local return. The point, which you fail to acknowledge is ...if those tax items were (mistakenly)reported as paid when the federal income tax was filed, (which would also impact the result of joint state return that was filed.0 THEN , if that were so,.. there COULD be additional taxes owed on the JOINT personal federal and state tax returns. This whole explanation was already made in the point above when the reference of MAY was used. You are the only person looking foolish here so far. 2 more quotes 2 go and Im aiming for 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The argument was not based on income taxes. From your own source, the business tax forms, the sales tax forms, the property tax forms, and the unincorporated renewal licesne fees, excise tax fees, etc. They all went to a different address that she was not privy too. How can she possiblly or reasonsbly know that the taxes were not paid.

Under a marriage, any marriage, there is a form of trust. Again, just to use Davdah's domestic situation, his wife trusts him as Davdah's trusts her. That is what marriage is about. The only question she would ask is if everything has been paid, etc. That is the prevalence she is not responsible for his business affairs, under California State law.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even better than RP... 1 Corinthians 15:33, which says “evil companionships corrupt good morals.” basically it means Watch your associations. Associations can say a lot about a person's attitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh how politically ccccccoooooonnnnnnvvvvvvvveeeeeeennnnnnniiiiiieeeeeeeennnnnntrrrrrrr.

But you also said and I quote, <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So what if one of his contributors is <span class="ev_code_RED">We the People Foundation</span> , or is in support of Ron Paul.

<span class="ev_code_RED">So what if Hitler or Saddam</span> or anybody else is in support of Ron Paul... you have no point, unless it was the other way around that Ron Paul would be in support of them.Dr. Paul may be a politician, but he is not a sleazy politican like those that you mentioned in the same breath as him. He is a champion of the constitution and prides himself in upholding it. The RPR types will be the ones that save this country. If you are not trying to be a part of the solution, then you are part of the problem </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So which is it 4now? Applying a misquoted Biblical verse in a political arena whereas you do not even apply the same standards to your master, Ron Paul in the same light just makes you look that more foolsih.

If you are going to apply the laws or a precept, appy to all or note at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dvadah... henyh Confused She is the wife and joint signer on a federal tax return that shows a sole prop return from her husband. She should be prudent enough to ask questions questions of her partner in life.about that business,,, just to make sure that things are in order in THEIR life where everything appears to be joint. As you saw, they had leins filed that resulted in income coming from both of them. If Solis had filed MFS, (as some spouses do based on how their spouses operate their business,)
then it would be a different story . I, personally am not looking for this type of person to hold that position. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But this is what RRA 98 did. The point is I would apply the same law if Davdah was facing a situaiton and I would apply the same law to his wife. That was the point I was making.

But when you had all those people, who actually lied on most things, state just how bad the IRS was, it caused tax collections and tax problems for the IRS. It made our jobs that much harder all because you listened to someoone who politically exercised the situation and never thought it completely through. This is why Congress, no matter who is in charge, messes things up more often than gets ti right. Until you use a very low benchmark on politicians, they will always fail you, And even if you use low benchmarks, they will fail you most of the time. They are there to look after temselves no matter who they are. They politically incite trials and tribulations toget elected. That is what politics is dones throughrough the world and in business.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No one is saying whether he is busy or not. Again, the point should be why accuse the wife on her husband's business issue when she is not the owner. Even Davdah's wife has the same legal separation that Mrs. Solis has when it comes to these type of issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


But I bet the tax man will have one thing to say to her if I drop dead and cheated on my taxes.

You signed your name to this joint return and are therefor responsible. And just what does it say where you sign?

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and
belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Generally Davdah, I will agree with you on joint tax returns with or without business income. However, the jurat statement is congruent to both parteis individually and as a whole. And it is based upon a belief of what is accurately reported on the tax return.

This now leads into several problems. Under the business tax form, even though it is part of the 1040, she has no reaosn to know or not to know because she is not a party privy to that information. Further, the bills, tax forms, and letters all go to a separate address that is only in his name.

With you and your wife situation, your wife will have that nice, little prenupt to show that she is not responsible. And so will you. That prenupt This will apply only to income taxes.

Second, if the business had any problems that are not part of the Form 1040, and if she is the executor, then your estate will pay those taxes. She would be the fudiciary and would be responsible for paying those obligations first before any disbussement of funds to the heirs occur. That is what probate is generally used for.

Again, the key to the jurat statement is the best of my knowledge and belief. That is the part where the IRS will look at, not just signing the return Davdah.

[federale86]

Gee, a Mexican who doesn't pay taxes. That is a shocker.

[dev199108]

car reverse parking camera with display price in india