I am increasingly concerned that some posters repeatedly post erroneos information about matters that can land shoppers in legal hot water. The most recent example was of advice giving only 11 of the 14 states (and stating that there are only 11 such) where it is illegal to audio record without the consent of all parties.

Okay, we may not have a lawyer who is up on this stuff, but we do have access to some reliable, attorney supported, sites dealing with such issues. It seems a bit harsh to just jump in as "just another poster" and demand that a poster supply an independent source that others can view. However, I hope that mods can be called upon to urge posters to provide such references if/when a report is made stating that a reliable source should be rerquired if the post is to remain on the forum.

I disagree. Unless there is requirement that all poster cite their sources for anything other than personal opinions, you are perching the mods at the top of a slippery slope. They are not attorneys either, so how would they decide which posters needed to cite their sources? Even attorneys, after reading statutes, regulations, case law, etc., do not always agree on legal interpretations.

Since the moderators represent the forum and J. J., I think it's best to stay out of legal matters other than a disclaimer somewhere that the comments here are not to be taken as legal advice and are only the opinions of the individuals. Leave it to the members to hash things out and everyone can take it (with a grain of salt) or leave it as they see fit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2015 07:38PM by LJ.

I bristle at tax advice, of anything much more than the mileage rate, in reply to an individual's post. There are too many unknowns.

I favor citing sources, disclaiming, and a healthy discussion on the merits.

(57.5 per mile, that's a good thing for 2015, particularly as gas prices continue to drop!)

----------------------

Disclaimer: I am merely a mystery shopper and do not participate in this forum as a tax professional.

Source: [www.irs.gov]

I personally would like to see tax advice, and the requests for it, banned completely from the forum. Questions about record-keeping, fine (such as spreadsheet suggestions, software recommendations). Reminders about what information to keep -- fine (such as, odometer readings, mileage driven to shops, receipts, record of all income and expenses).

But questions about "is this deductible" and "can I write off my computer and cell phone" and "should I take the mileage rate or actual expenses" and "is it better for me to mystery shop in the new car or the old clunker" and "how long should I keep my information" and "how many years can I lose money before the IRS gets involved" should be answered by someone who is actually responsible for the asker's tax return and who knows their entire tax situation. Because those answers are entirely dependent on the total tax situation, there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

I am compelled to correct information given here by people who are just trying to be helpful, but I'd rather people just not try to answer the question at all so that I don't then feel the need to add all the other possibilities that were not mentioned. If we made it a policy that tax advice not be given here, only links to the relevant irs web page maybe, then each first responder could just state, "We are not allowed to give tax advice here. Please consult a tax preparer in your area or go to irs.gov" just like we state "We cannot tell you who shops Ruby Tuesdays. Sign up with more companies and you will find the shops if they are shopped in your area."

And the New Shopper area tax thread should be removed completely and replaced with a comment similar to the above -- please see a tax preparer as we are not permitted to give tax advice here.

Wales, I also bristle when I see erroneous information upheld by the poster as fact. For me, a recent example of this was a poster asking for advice on how to earn less than $400 to avoid paying taxes.

I am all for providing the best and most accurate information available. However, when you suggest that Jacob and the moderators step in to remove or correct incorrect statements I think you mistake the structure of this place. Jacob provides a platform for shoppers to discuss mystery shopping. Asking him and his employees to police the veracity of posts turns him into a source or resource that he is not. We are the sole sources of information. As such, I believe we must be the solution to the problem. We can post to inform or correct. Citations to authoritative sources are a great idea, especially when the topic is taxes. Vetted information contained in the Stickys can and should contain good accurate information.

I hope that view helps.

I'm not in favor of taking out the tax advice, or any other advice. There will be differences of opinion about the correct way to do taxes because of the way the tax laws are written and interpreted.

I don't see how anyone can say what is 100% accurate and what is not accurate at all. When I was preparing taxes under the direction of an enrolled agent, she said if we thought we could argue a deduction with a 33% chance of winning, we should go for the deduction for the client. Many times I had to explain to her how I would argue for a questionable deduction, and never once did I fail to get to take the deduction for the client. Also, I was not aware that any of those deductions were challenged by the IRS. So you see, what may be on the edge may work perfectly well.

Let's pretend that dspeakes (whom I consider our current income tax guru and well deserved, too) says something I think is not 100% accurate. That doesn't mean I think it's 100% wrong. I just see different possibilities.

I'm not encouraging anyone to play fast and loose with the IRS rules, but I am encouraging everyone to take every logical advantage when preparing taxes.

Certainly we should all consult IRS.gov or a qualified tax specialist. I have seen a lot of trash work by qualified tax specialists and my grades for their work run from A+ to FBigTime. The tax specialist is the best thing we have going but I think it's good to get a lot of different opinions on the forum, too.

We have experience with our tax problems as relating to this particular business, and I believe it would be a mistake if we were not allowed to comment. Logic tells us that none of us know everything but most of us know something.

I was not suggesting that comments not be allowed. I want to encourage all to ask the poster to verify the source of the information. If a poster say, "I read the IRS publication on xyz to say that I can only deduct mileage to the first shop of the day. What do you think?" Then I have no problem. Anyone can look up the reference and see and say what they think. This is different from someone posting that shoppers should never record any conversation because they could end up in jail! (And, yes, we have had at least two posters who have repeatedly stated such things.) More recently, a poster stated that there were only 11 states where two party consent was required for audio recording, and named them. (There are 14, at last count, so that left shoppers in three of those states with pretty bad advice about a potential felony!) Since despeakes cannot be expected to be everywhere on a 24/7 basis, for instance, why not just have a general practice that someone, mods seemed like a likely choice, keep a lookout for tax (and legal) "advice" and input a statement to the effect that the poster has been requested to provide a referance on which the advice is based? If the poster then says, "Well, that's what 14 accountant's offices said when I called them, it is quite different from a poster saying, "IRS publication xyz says..." That way, readers can look it up on line and may argue about what it actually says, but that is quite different from no reply at all.

That would add considerably to the burden of the moderators. Perhaps if we do that (monitor to ask for references) we need volunteers other than the moderators to bird dog the legal and tax advice. The monitors are already loaded and work daily on a volunteer basis chasing spam, ICA violations, and personal attacks. Besides being opposed to taking out advice and comments, I would recommend not adding to the burden of the moderators.

I appreciate the idea since to me taking tax or legal advice from an online forum is foolish. I also agree the moderators have enough work as it is and have always assumed they are volunteers. We certainly have a large enough group of core members who are here weekly and daily that the burden could be spread around. I would never hold myself out as being even moderately knowledgeable about taxes or I wouldn't be paying someone else to do them every year. It doesn't mean I don't recognize off the wall statements, like no reporting or paying taxes if you earn less than $600 from a company.

If we don't provide tax and legal comments here, that would be a great idea for a new and separate forum for mystery shoppers to discuss those issues.

A corps of volunteers sounds like a great idea. A standard, non-confrontational "challenge" asking for source reference need not be a big deal.

I know that the active tax practitioners here will be swamped for months to come, so we would need to assume that common sense volunteers will be the norm.

Jacob, what think you?

I'm all in favor of keeping the tax advice page. Most folks that are reasonable and have common sense know that if they have serious issues, they should see a licensed professional at a Jackson Hewitt office, for example. They also know that the tax code changes every year with new quirks.

Also, I would strongly recommend them to absolutely NOT see anyone who professes to be a tax guru. Too many scams out there, particularly among people who call themselves tax experts.

Wow, excellent advice Eric! Let's keep the inaccurate and outdated advice on the forum, and encourage people not to go to tax experts.

(You have any clue how little training the "professionals" at places like J-H and H&R actually get? Of course you don't.)

BTW, tax preparers are not "licensed." They are registered. There's a huge difference. Anyone with $65 can be registered. It took me 4 years of accounting education with an emphasis in taxation and 18 years and several hundred clients' worth of experience to become a "guru."

I'm not sure which way the wind is blowing in Tampa. Eric advises in the first paragraph "Most folks that are reasonable and have common sense know that if they have serious issues, they should see a licensed professional at a Jackson Hewitt office, for example." In the second paragraph, "Also, I would strongly recommend them to absolutely NOT see anyone who professes to be a tax guru." Maybe I'm missing something, but those pieces of advise seem contradictory.

The wind in Tampa looks to be shifting momentarily from paragraph to paragraph.

As far as consulting a tax expert such as someone at Jackson Hewitt, good luck with that. It can go either way. Staff at franchised tax firms range from first season preparers (think a very basic understanding) all the way up to the enrolled agent present at some locations. I am not currently a tax preparer but have several years past experience at both Jackson Hewitt and H & R Block and I base my statements on that experience.

The best policy, in my opinion, is to learn 100% of what you need to know about your own tax situation.

Whether picking out your tax preparer or deciding to do it yourself, nothing in the game trumps self knowledge.

I took this to mean the emphasis on professes - meaning just saying you are a tax expert doesn't mean you are one.

@Mert wrote:

In the second paragraph, "Also, I would strongly recommend them to absolutely NOT see anyone who professes to be a tax guru." Maybe I'm missing something, but those pieces of advise seem contradictory.

Good point, kimmiemae, you are exactly right. Claiming to be an expert may have nothing to do with being an expert. That said, if one plans to use the services of firms such as Jackson Hewitt and H&R Block, it would be a good idea to seek out a preparer with several years experience rather than accepting the luck of the draw first or second year preparer who may be qualified for only the most basic return with no schedules attached.

In the brightest possible scenario, we would all get a degreed accountant with years and years of experience. We wish.

Eric's comment was a thinly veiled insult directed at me (a degreed accountant with years of tax experience), due to the brouhaha that erupted on another thread when he deliberately misquoted, misinterpreted, and then attacked something I said, and then refused to even admit to the misquote when called down on it. I refused to engage with him on the subject in several PM's he sent me, so now he's going around posting stuff trying to get my goat.

That's why in one paragraph he encourages people to go to Jackson Hewitt, and in the next paragraph tries to discourage anyone from listening to me (the tax guru).

Anyone who wants can google "Speakes" and "Taxes" and find out all you want to know about me and my credentials. You can also find me listed on the irs website. No, I am not taking new clients.

Thanks for the insight kimmiemae. While you may very well be right, I did not interpret it that way.

No worries, Mert. Unless Eric comes back to explain that statement all we can do is guess.

dspeakes, my interpretation did not have you in mind when I posted so if you took it to mean I meant you, I'm sorry.

When I read the statement about people professing to be knowledgeable in something I thought of that show on TV where the homeowners have to hire Mike Holmes to fix something that someone else screwed up because they "professed" to know what they were doing. Taken that way, that would be good advice for a whole lot of situations.

Mary had a great point also about having someone with experience. My nephew is going to school and will be taking the CPA test soon. This kid is crazy smart and I have no doubt he will be great, but he will lack experience. In the large corporation I work at I know several people from the finance department who deal with taxes but a large corporation's taxes are different that a small business owner's and may not be familiar with all the deductions one can take to reduce the tax burden.

Ha ha, would he like some tax clients? I'm trying to cut back.

No, most people coming here wouldn't realize that barb was directed at me if they hadn't seen the exchange on the other thread. He's decided to disagree with everything I say now; I think he's looking to see where I have posted so he can come there and argue. Since I called for removing the thread with misinformation on it, he of course will rally to keep it.

The timing is what made it clear he was gunning for me. Too much of a coincidence for him to have spontaneously decided that people needed to be told who to use for their taxes.

IMHO, ignore him, now and in the future, and spend your time doing what you do best: explaining, clarifying and educating.

(heart)

At least he stopped PMing me.... I think I have him toggled now.

What are you babbling about now? I make one comment on a completely different thread and you think I'm insulting you? Talk about paranoia. If I were going to insult you, I would do so in person <extraneous inflammatory remarks removed, the point is made just fine with just this part here>.

@dspeakes wrote:

Eric's comment was a thinly veiled insult directed at me (a degreed accountant with years of tax experience), due to the brouhaha that erupted on another thread when he deliberately misquoted, misinterpreted, and then attacked something I said, and then refused to even admit to the misquote when called down on it. I refused to engage with him on the subject in several PM's he sent me, so now he's going around posting stuff trying to get my goat.

That's why in one paragraph he encourages people to go to Jackson Hewitt, and in the next paragraph tries to discourage anyone from listening to me (the tax guru).

Anyone who wants can google "Speakes" and "Taxes" and find out all you want to know about me and my credentials. You can also find me listed on the irs website. No, I am not taking new clients.

Mod note: Seriously, dude?

Eric, you're going waaaaaaay too far and, for that reason, I felt compelled to report your post as "Horrifying". Please move on to something more constructive.

(heart)

Guess we'll see what the mods are made of...

They were right on it, it appears. Well done. Thank you. However, as stated in the other thread, removal of the entire post would have been better IMO for all the reasons Mary listed.

And quick, too.

And, my favorite.....funny:

"Mod note: Seriously, dude?"

(heart)