Tax, business and law update
Friday, July 02, 2010
We Hold These Truths...
Thank you Founding Fathers! Please read the Declaration of Independence: http://www.taxesq.com/declaration.pdf
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Freedom for All Americans
On this day in 1866, the Republican-majority 39th Congress overrode a veto by the Democrat president, Andrew Johnson, to enact the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Every Democrat in Congress voted against it.
The purpose of the 1866 Civil Rights Act was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South. There, Democrats had enacted black codes to impose near-slavery on African-Americans who had just been emancipated by the Republican Party's 13th Amendment.
Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) wrote the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which conferred U.S. citizenship on former slaves and other African-Americans. The law guaranteed African-Americans "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens." Republicans thereby granted African-Americans the right to own property, engage in business, sign contracts and file lawsuits.
This was the first time that Congress overrode a veto of a significant bill. Also, the 1866 Civil Rights Act contradicted the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the seven Democrat Justices on the Supreme Court had decreed that black people did not have constitutional rights. To prevent Democrats from someday repealing the Act, Republicans later enshrined its provisions as Article I of the 14th Amendment.
Sadly, Democrats defied the 1866 Civil Rights Act and other Republican reforms. Democrat oppression of African-Americans would not be overcome until the 1960's civil rights movement.
The purpose of the 1866 Civil Rights Act was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South. There, Democrats had enacted black codes to impose near-slavery on African-Americans who had just been emancipated by the Republican Party's 13th Amendment.
Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) wrote the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which conferred U.S. citizenship on former slaves and other African-Americans. The law guaranteed African-Americans "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens." Republicans thereby granted African-Americans the right to own property, engage in business, sign contracts and file lawsuits.
This was the first time that Congress overrode a veto of a significant bill. Also, the 1866 Civil Rights Act contradicted the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the seven Democrat Justices on the Supreme Court had decreed that black people did not have constitutional rights. To prevent Democrats from someday repealing the Act, Republicans later enshrined its provisions as Article I of the 14th Amendment.
Sadly, Democrats defied the 1866 Civil Rights Act and other Republican reforms. Democrat oppression of African-Americans would not be overcome until the 1960's civil rights movement.
Freedom for All Americans
On this day in 1866, the Republican-majority 39th Congress overrode a veto by the Democrat president, Andrew Johnson, to enact the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Every Democrat in Congress voted against it.
The purpose of the 1866 Civil Rights Act was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South. There, Democrats had enacted black codes to impose near-slavery on African-Americans who had just been emancipated by the Republican Party's 13th Amendment.
Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) wrote the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which conferred U.S. citizenship on former slaves and other African-Americans. The law guaranteed African-Americans "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens." Republicans thereby granted African-Americans the right to own property, engage in business, sign contracts and file lawsuits.
This was the first time that Congress overrode a veto of a significant bill. Also, the 1866 Civil Rights Act contradicted the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the seven Democrat Justices on the Supreme Court had decreed that black people did not have constitutional rights. To prevent Democrats from someday repealing the Act, Republicans later enshrined its provisions as Article I of the 14th Amendment.
Sadly, Democrats defied the 1866 Civil Rights Act and other Republican reforms. Democrat oppression of African-Americans would not be overcome until the 1960's civil rights movement.
The purpose of the 1866 Civil Rights Act was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South. There, Democrats had enacted black codes to impose near-slavery on African-Americans who had just been emancipated by the Republican Party's 13th Amendment.
Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) wrote the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which conferred U.S. citizenship on former slaves and other African-Americans. The law guaranteed African-Americans "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens." Republicans thereby granted African-Americans the right to own property, engage in business, sign contracts and file lawsuits.
This was the first time that Congress overrode a veto of a significant bill. Also, the 1866 Civil Rights Act contradicted the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the seven Democrat Justices on the Supreme Court had decreed that black people did not have constitutional rights. To prevent Democrats from someday repealing the Act, Republicans later enshrined its provisions as Article I of the 14th Amendment.
Sadly, Democrats defied the 1866 Civil Rights Act and other Republican reforms. Democrat oppression of African-Americans would not be overcome until the 1960's civil rights movement.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Why I Support Ron Paul For President
Why I Support Ron Paul for President
Taxes
First, Ron Paul is the only limited government, lower taxes candidate. He has never voted to increase taxes and desires to cut government spending and taxes needed to support the spending. You cannot increase government (whether it is "infrastructure" as used by the Big Spenders, or transfer payments and subsidies,) and expect to lower taxes.
Free Trade
Ron Paul supports real free trade not more governmental organizations such as NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. Free trade is simple... we won't tax imports and other countries do not tax our exports.
War and Foriegn Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. We have no business making "regime changes" and trying to knock down or prop up other governments. We are not and can never be the policemen of the world.
Personal Liberty
The biggest threat to personal liberty is the government. We must limit the ability of the government to collect and store data about citizens' personal matters. Every government agency restricts individual choice. We need to cut back on government and increase personal freedom. The Constitution has a very limited role for the Federal government. Washington has no business being involved with education, abortion, religion, race relations, housing, etc. These are the rights left to the individuals and the states.
Yes, Ron Paul CAN WIN
The so-called "practical" political commentators say that Ron Paul can't win so we should unite behind a "winner" even if we do not support their views. This is the old "unite for unity" trap and is akin to Machiavelli's "the end justifies the means" argument. Let's vote for the best person...Ron Paul for President in 2008!
Ronald J. Cappuccio
Click Here to contribute to Ron Paul's Campaign
Taxes
First, Ron Paul is the only limited government, lower taxes candidate. He has never voted to increase taxes and desires to cut government spending and taxes needed to support the spending. You cannot increase government (whether it is "infrastructure" as used by the Big Spenders, or transfer payments and subsidies,) and expect to lower taxes.
Free Trade
Ron Paul supports real free trade not more governmental organizations such as NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. Free trade is simple... we won't tax imports and other countries do not tax our exports.
War and Foriegn Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. We have no business making "regime changes" and trying to knock down or prop up other governments. We are not and can never be the policemen of the world.
Personal Liberty
The biggest threat to personal liberty is the government. We must limit the ability of the government to collect and store data about citizens' personal matters. Every government agency restricts individual choice. We need to cut back on government and increase personal freedom. The Constitution has a very limited role for the Federal government. Washington has no business being involved with education, abortion, religion, race relations, housing, etc. These are the rights left to the individuals and the states.
Yes, Ron Paul CAN WIN
The so-called "practical" political commentators say that Ron Paul can't win so we should unite behind a "winner" even if we do not support their views. This is the old "unite for unity" trap and is akin to Machiavelli's "the end justifies the means" argument. Let's vote for the best person...Ron Paul for President in 2008!
Ronald J. Cappuccio
Click Here to contribute to Ron Paul's Campaign
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Shulz' phoney tax schemes stopped
A New York Court permanently stopped Robert L. Schulz and his two groups, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education Inc. and We the People Congress, from selling materials by mail, over the Internet or in person that falsely claim citizens do not have an obligation to pay federal income taxes. The phoney materials mislead people into believing they can opt-out of filing W-4 withholding forms. The scheme is to prevent withholding. The Court determined "Defendants' materials are intended to cause employees to believe that they need not pay an income tax and employers to believe that they need not withhold taxes from employees' wages or pay matching amounts."Part of Schulz' program is "Operation Stop Withholding." Watch out for anyone that claims you simply do not have to file or pay taxes.
Monday, September 12, 2005
IRS Raises mileage rate to 48.5 cents
In response to the sharp jump in gas prices, the Internal Revenue Service yesterday said it raised the standard mileage reimbursement rate by 8 cents to 48.5 cents a mile, the single largest increase ever.
The new rate will be retroactive, applying to business travel from Sept. 1 through the end of this year.
Workers who use their vehicles for business can deduct their actual expenses or the standard mileage rate on tax returns. The federal government and many private employers use the IRS rate when reimbursing workers who use their car on the job.
The new rate will be retroactive, applying to business travel from Sept. 1 through the end of this year.
Workers who use their vehicles for business can deduct their actual expenses or the standard mileage rate on tax returns. The federal government and many private employers use the IRS rate when reimbursing workers who use their car on the job.
Friday, January 28, 2005
W-2 Not Received by Jan. 31
===========
Question:
==========
Category: Tax and Taxation Law
Location: IL
Subject: Employer not Delivering W2's by Jan. 31st?
My employer is not Delivering my W2's by Jan. 31st. Is there any action I can take or any taxpayers rights I have to retaliate against this?
===========
Reply:
===========
Category: Tax and Taxation Law
Location: IL
Subject: Re: Employer not Delivering W2's by Jan. 31st?
Sometimes, employers cannot provide W-2's by January 31. Most employees are understanding. If you are really in such a rush to prepare your taxes, you can get all of the necessary information from the "Year to Date" section on you last payroll stub for the year.
The real issue is usually the employee is expecting a large refund. That is the problem. If your expected refund is more than $200, you should file a new W-4 with your employer increasing your exemptions. This will increase your weekly take home pay and avoid unnecessarily large refunds. Why let the government hold your money interest free?
Question:
==========
Category: Tax and Taxation Law
Location: IL
Subject: Employer not Delivering W2's by Jan. 31st?
My employer is not Delivering my W2's by Jan. 31st. Is there any action I can take or any taxpayers rights I have to retaliate against this?
===========
Reply:
===========
Category: Tax and Taxation Law
Location: IL
Subject: Re: Employer not Delivering W2's by Jan. 31st?
Sometimes, employers cannot provide W-2's by January 31. Most employees are understanding. If you are really in such a rush to prepare your taxes, you can get all of the necessary information from the "Year to Date" section on you last payroll stub for the year.
The real issue is usually the employee is expecting a large refund. That is the problem. If your expected refund is more than $200, you should file a new W-4 with your employer increasing your exemptions. This will increase your weekly take home pay and avoid unnecessarily large refunds. Why let the government hold your money interest free?
How can we change a Partnership to a LLC?
Hi Ron
My husband and I started a small business two years ago, as a partnership, and we would like to change it to an LLC. Could you provide advise as to how to go about doing this.
Thanks
Answer:
Have you filed US Partnership Tax Returns - form 1065, or do you file a Schedule C on your 1040? THe steps would be to:
1. Establish a LLC
2. Use the same EIN as the partnership
3. Transfer the business assets into the LLC.
Depending upon filing, there should be no Federal Tax. You may be subject to state and local taxes and registration fees depending upon the assets. Plese see my web site http://www.taxesq.com/ for more information.
I would be happy to help you!
Ron Cappuccio
My husband and I started a small business two years ago, as a partnership, and we would like to change it to an LLC. Could you provide advise as to how to go about doing this.
Thanks
Answer:
Have you filed US Partnership Tax Returns - form 1065, or do you file a Schedule C on your 1040? THe steps would be to:
1. Establish a LLC
2. Use the same EIN as the partnership
3. Transfer the business assets into the LLC.
Depending upon filing, there should be no Federal Tax. You may be subject to state and local taxes and registration fees depending upon the assets. Plese see my web site http://www.taxesq.com/ for more information.
I would be happy to help you!
Ron Cappuccio
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Should you grant an Extension to the IRS for continuing an Audit?
===========
Question: http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs/mesg.cgi?i=556453537
===========
Category: Tax and Taxation Law
Location: MA
Subject: Audit Extension
The IRS has been auditing my 2001 Federal return since April, 2003. After no communication since May, 2003, I received a letter last week requesting an extension through December, 2005. The 3-year limit ends in April, 2005. Should I give the IRS the extension?
===========
Reply: http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs/mesg.cgi?i=628780324
===========
Category: Tax and Taxation Law
Location: MA
Subject: Re: Audit Extension
You should definitely discuss this matter with a tax attorney prior to signing the extension. It all depends on the type of audit. For example, if the IRS is reviewing every document for a Taxpayer Compliance Audit, an extension would probably be inadvisable. The tax attorney could review the documents and determine the risk. Usually, the denial of the extension results in the issueance of a Notice of Deficiency which means you must file in US Tax Court within 90 days. There is also an administrative review prior to the actual trial. Please see my website at http://www.taxesq.com for further information.
===========
Question: http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs/mesg.cgi?i=556453537
===========
Category: Tax and Taxation Law
Location: MA
Subject: Audit Extension
The IRS has been auditing my 2001 Federal return since April, 2003. After no communication since May, 2003, I received a letter last week requesting an extension through December, 2005. The 3-year limit ends in April, 2005. Should I give the IRS the extension?
===========
Reply: http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs/mesg.cgi?i=628780324
===========
Category: Tax and Taxation Law
Location: MA
Subject: Re: Audit Extension
You should definitely discuss this matter with a tax attorney prior to signing the extension. It all depends on the type of audit. For example, if the IRS is reviewing every document for a Taxpayer Compliance Audit, an extension would probably be inadvisable. The tax attorney could review the documents and determine the risk. Usually, the denial of the extension results in the issueance of a Notice of Deficiency which means you must file in US Tax Court within 90 days. There is also an administrative review prior to the actual trial. Please see my website at http://www.taxesq.com for further information.
