What "names" did txmedia call you, Lisa? I don't see it. If you are offended by the "hens" reference, frankly it seems deserved if people are going to get into a tizzy simply because someone placed emphasis on a few words. Asking for clarification is one thing, but Mary seemed offended immediately, basically told the poster to go away and contact the IRS....yet keeps posting being passive aggressive and insulting. I re-read it a few times and don't get the hostility. Obviously there is some back-history or just some very sensitive and easily offended folks here.

spaztck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rainy, you are missing a lot of back history and
> should look at some of the original poster's older
> threads. Mary is one of the most helpful posters
> on this forum. I highly respect her, as do many
> others on this forum.
>
> rainy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Geez Mary... you've been insulting, arrogant,
> and
> > lecture-y throughout this whole thread. I don't
> > even know why you initially responded and then
> > keep responding, because you certainly seem to
> > have a personal problem with the poster and the
> > question(s).


If people have that much of a problem with someone, then maybe they should just ignore their threads and not get involved instead of getting involved and then playing the victim when things get weird.

The OP doesn't have to call me names directly and if you read the post you will see it was directed to quite a few people. You chose to defend the OP, I chose to defend Mary. All Mary did was say the original post was not clear and suggest the IRS website. Where do you get that as being preachy or insulting? Saying the post was unclear offered the OP an opportunity to provide more information and doesn't exactly correlate to being told to "go away." Nobody is playing the victim, but the name calling was unnecessary and inflammatory.

Obviously people read things differently. I saw many uncalled for comments. YMMV. Perhaps Mary's initial post I misunderstood, but the following ones definitely had one or more rude comments in them (and/or some sarcastic passive-aggressive weirdness about how she supposedly doesn't know anything about MS). I am still not sure what txmedia did to get the "retaliatory" and so forth comments....is it truly because of capitalizing "NOT"?

In my opinion, after asking simple questions and being told by more than one person I had an attitude, was retaliatory, etc., I would also look at the posters as a clique of old hens ganging up.

If the hostility is a carry over from some other thread, then anyone who responded who has these feelings about txmedia is at fault for even responding to the thread. All I know is that if someone had previosuly offended me to the point of me not being able to have a civilized conversation or being easily irritated by anything said, I definitely would not enter a thread he or she created.

This is my opinion. It's okay if you don't agree.

txmedia,
The bottom line is that unless you used a Schedule C to report your MS earnings, the IRS does not view them as self-employment earnings. To fix that, move your self-employment earnings to a Schedule C. Then, if your net Schedule C earnings, from all self-employment sources exceeds $400, you will be directed to a computation worksheet to computer how much SE tax you owe. Follow the directions to compute and pay the self-employment tax (The SE equivalent of FICA taxes for W-2 earnings), and refile all as an amended return. If you did not go through Schedule C, then you almost certainly missed the requirement to compute and pay SE tax. Untangling this is not really much work if you get the right forms and follow the very straightforward instructions. And, the least expensive version of Turbo Tax would have walked you through the right forms in the first place, btw. Clearly your online source did not, if it diected your MS earnings to any form except a Schedule C.

MDavisnowell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Txmedia, direct your questions to the IRS to get
> the answers you need. The questions you are
> asking are not clear.

How can anyone think this is rude. This is the correct advice for tax questions.

txmedia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is NOT clear? I received a letter from the
> IRS stating I need to supply W2 and 1099 misc. for
> any money earned from 2012. I am asking can I USE
> one form to report all the shops which did not
> reach the $600 level? Do I need to report every
> little job with an individual form? I have seen
> other comments on this site regarding taxes. The
> IRS stated I could NOT print the 1099 Misc. form.
> Can any of you shoppers share your own experiences
> regarding filing taxes? Thanks!

This is rude because evidently there is more to the story that he doesn't mention until later. specifically the EIC. Rather than showing appreciation for Mary's comments and trying to clarify his question the OP makes it seem like he is going on the offense against Mary.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2013 06:23PM by jwolpert.

Having tried to clarify the tax issues, in hopes that other readers will get the essentials about self-employement income and taxes, I want to add this.

Both txmedia and rainy have proven themselves to be name-calling troublemakers numerous times on these forums. Moreover, unless I miss the mark entirely, at least one of them has gotten at least on moderator warning or "time out" for just such behavior in the past. So, it is not simply a matter of Mary, or Lisa, or me being "sensitive" or nitpicking. Although some readers may not be aware of it, the "hens" reference refers back to one of the most visciuos and egregious violations of forum rules, directed specifically at Mary and other respected, helpful, and level-headed posters. Both txmedia and rainy have been around and saw those threads, so they do know the reference and how unacceptable the reference was. I am not a moderator, and I do not go running to the mods at every thing. But I do know that this thread is being observed by mods who will give short shrift to name calling and who are very well aware of the history, since they have permanently banned the original offender.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2013 09:28PM by walesmaven.

In consideration of 1099's...
My day job is with a small business, and based on new tax code in effect this year, our payroll and tax person is now issuing a 1099 for every service provider, no matter how little they are paid. Snow removal, lock repair, security system maintenance, etc. All of these will be getting 1099's, and none of them will have been paid over $600 for the year. We looked at last year's records, and would have had to issue 23 1099's instead of 3 if these rules had been effect last year.
Any idea whether we shoppers will be getting dozens of 1099's for 2013 based on this new tax code?

I initially felt, based on what the OP said, that the best option was to deal directly with the IRS and ask them her questions about what they wanted. I didn't think we had coherent information, and I was right. She didn't tell us she was playing with numbers to jack up the earned income credit. She didn't tell us that she didn't file a Schedule C, or SE. She didn't tell us she didn't file on any expenses in connection with her mystery shopping business. Wonder why she left all that out? And how are we supposed to deal with partial information and provide a useful answer? And after this, why should we care any more anyway?

If you can't pick up on her belligerent answer back to me but you can see my arrogance, then you have peculiar vision. If you don't also understand her subsequent comment that she's playing with numbers to jack up her earned income credit, which comes straight out of the US Treasury (US meaning us), then you don't understand anything about the entire thread.

I'm sick of posters who come on here begging for help and then whine and moan about the answers they get. If posters are belligerent and hostile, why should any of us turn the other cheek? I don't think we should continue to put up with their bad mouth. Most of us had to figure this out mainly on our own, and when we try to help someone we don't appreciate being kicked in the head.

It's not necessary for you to understand why I post. Lots of times I post because I hang on this board all day, I don't have a life, I'm an old hen pecking around the barnyard hoping for a worn out rooster, I never do any shopping anyway because I'm always on this board, and recently I may or may not have been included in the "know it alls". You don't have to understand it. I post. Deal with it.






rainy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geez Mary... you've been insulting, arrogant, and
> lecture-y throughout this whole thread. I don't
> even know why you initially responded and then
> keep responding, because you certainly seem to
> have a personal problem with the poster and the
> question(s).

txmedia, I just read your April 17, 2013, on line blog posting under your previous identity and I'm going to quote you exactly because it seems to apply to posts from both of us. Perhaps we could both be more considerate. I quote you:

"There is NO excuse for bad behavior and poor social skills."

You provided the link to your blog in a posting under your previous identity. You might want to update the update date at the top of the blog, which reads November 16, 2012.

Now don't go saying you didn't say that. Anyone can log onto your blog and see for themselves. Unless, of course, you take down the whole blog.

Posting as cheryljane:

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]


Posting as txmedia:

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

See a pattern?

spaztck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rainy, you are missing a lot of back history and
> should look at some of the original poster's older
> threads. Mary is one of the most helpful posters
> on this forum. I highly respect her, as do many
> others on this forum.
>
> rainy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Geez Mary... you've been insulting, arrogant,
> and
> > lecture-y throughout this whole thread. I don't
> > even know why you initially responded and then
> > keep responding, because you certainly seem to
> > have a personal problem with the poster and the
> > question(s).

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2013 01:09AM by BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz.

txmedia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I am asking can I USE
> one form to report all the shops which did not
> reach the $600 level?

No, you do not need a separate form for each job. You should be reporting all of your independent contracting income on Schedule C. You can deduct expenses for you business there even if you don't take the deductions on your 1040 form.

You must report all of your independent contracting income, even the income for which you did not receive a 1099. You only get a 1099 if you earned $600 or more for that particular company.

It is confusing and complicated. This is why I started hiring an accountant to do my taxes. He charged $200, but it is well worth my avoiding the headaches of doing the taxes myself. Also, you might want to start using the Shopper Job Organizer at www.mystshopsol.com to keep track of your income. That is what I do.

I got a call from the Tax Advocates. The rep left a message - stated I can combine all the little jobs which did not come to $600 onto one form. Explain what the jobs are for. She was helpful and encouraged me to call. I will.

There really is nothing illegal about not reporting some write offs. I donate to many charities and I do not report everything.

I can get EIC because my income falls within the required range. I have been getting EIC for years. Want to know who recommended I apply for EIC? The IRS.

walesmaven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having tried to clarify the tax issues, in hopes
> that other readers will get the essentials about
> self-employement income and taxes, I want to add
> this.
>
> Both txmedia and rainy have proven themselves to
> be name-calling troublemakers numerous times on
> these forums. Moreover, unless I miss the mark
> entirely, at least one of them has gotten at least
> on moderator warning or "time out" for just such
> behavior in the past. So, it is not simply a
> matter of Mary, or Lisa, or me being "sensitive"
> or nitpicking. Although some readers may not be
> aware of it, the "hens" reference refers back to
> one of the most visciuos and egregious violations
> of forum rules, directed specifically at Mary and
> other respected, helpful, and level-headed
> posters. Both txmedia and rainy have been around
> and saw those threads, so they do know the
> reference and how unacceptable the reference was.
> I am not a moderator, and I do not go running to
> the mods at every thing. But I do know that this
> thread is being observed by mods who will give
> short shrift to name calling and who are very well
> aware of the history, since they have permanently
> banned the original offender.



Excuse me, but you needs to get your facts straight. I appreciate some people do not agree with me in this thread, and there are a lot of folks who know and support each other here. That's fine. This is the only thread (that I know of) where there has been any sort of "issue" with my posts, so exactly what other threads are you talking about? I challenge you to point out some of the "numerous" threads where I have been a "name-calling troublemaker." Seriosly, can you point out even one instance of it? I am not afraid to apologize if I feel I made a mistake or did something wrong. As I said, people see and read things differently.

Also, I have never read any sort of "hen" thread. Please tell me....how do you know what I read and what I don't? I thought it was just a clique of people pecking and pecking, which is how I personally saw/see it. And I certainly don't read every thread or go into every forum on this board, so even if the thread was last week, doesn't mean I read the thing. Up until a few weeks ago, I had not been on the board for months. I did scan txmedia's posts, and went through 4 pages, and saw no problems. I did not click into those posts, just scrolled down the list you can access from the profile, but they all seemed fine. Maybe I missed something, but after I did that I wondered if people are holding grudges from something that happened a long time ago.

If a mod has a problem with anything I have said, he or she can let me know or ban me. I have never had any sort of "warning." I stand by everything I said.

BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Posting as cheryljane:
>
> [www.mysteryshopforum.com]
> 98
>
> [www.mysteryshopforum.com]
> 07
>
> [www.mysteryshopforum.com]
>
>
> Posting as txmedia:
>
> [www.mysteryshopforum.com]
> 92
>
> [www.mysteryshopforum.com]
> 00#msg-163900
>
> [www.mysteryshopforum.com]
> 04#msg-163904
>
> See a pattern?
>
> spaztck Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > rainy, you are missing a lot of back history
> and
> > should look at some of the original poster's
> older
> > threads. Mary is one of the most helpful
> posters
> > on this forum. I highly respect her, as do
> many
> > others on this forum.
> >
> > rainy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Geez Mary... you've been insulting, arrogant,
> > and
> > > lecture-y throughout this whole thread. I
> don't
> > > even know why you initially responded and
> then
> > > keep responding, because you certainly seem
> to
> > > have a personal problem with the poster and
> the
> > > question(s).


I am not going to spend time figuring out if txmedia has more than one user name, but the links you posted from txmedia were from last July. None of the forums I have ever belonged to allow more than one user name, and neither of those accounts have been banned/closed. I do not know if txmedia has admitted being the other name or if this is just a suspicion, but I am not going to spend any more time researching anything. And even if txmedia is the other user name, people who involve themselves in threads where they don't like the person are asking for trouble, yet for some reason, several people who don't like tx seem to feel the need to post in his/her threads. Weird.

You can't see anything by just scrolling through and the issues go back a long time and have been ongoing.

When members decide to create multiple aliases for the purpose of @#$%& and moaning, name calling and generally being a-holes, it is not quickly forgotten. The problem is, they all think we too stupid to realize who they are and what they have done. So don't ask us to give someone a break that has not done a damn thing to deserve one. When any of them decide to post something that is worthwhile, I will leave them alone. But when they come along asking for help and then turning on the people that offer it, they can bite me.

The bottom line is, way too many people come here, stomp their feet and ask everyone else to do their work for them. This forum is made of some of the most fantastic people I have ever seen because they will continually be patient and offer guidance. The fact that txmedia/cheryljane launched an attack on Mary, has done the same thing over and over again, and never has the decency to apologize is appalling. That she has the nerve to be so hateful while calling herself a Christian to boot, is disgusting.

I don't see an "attack on Mary" from tx.

If this al over the "hen" thing which is allegedly the worst and most terrible insult ever in the history of mystery shopping, first of all that is silly.. and second, I don't think it's really all that common of a term in MS. I have read on various MS shop boards for years now, and have never heard it.

I suggest discussing the multiple user names with a moderator and having him/her ban them. Should be able to check IPs. Either the moderators don't know about it, or they don't agree they are the same people, or they allow more than one user name.

I also suggest people stay out of threads where they obviously can't stand ther person who created the thread.

I think that is about it. There is really no point going back and forth, though I will check back and see if walesmaven is able to meet my challenge. Good luck!

The following is quoted from the irs.gov site regarding figuring self employment net earnings for purposes of the earned income credit:


I know self-employed individuals have to report all income. My question is about deducting expenses. Are taxpayers required by law to claim all expenses pertaining to their business?

Yes. A self-employed individual is required to report all income and deduct all expenses. Revenue Ruling 56-407, 1956-2 C.B. 564, deals with the issue of taxpayers not taking all allowable deductions in computing net earnings from self-employment for self-employment tax purposes. Rev. Rul. 56-407 held that under §1402(a), every taxpayer (with the exception of certain farm operators) must claim all allowable deductions in computing net earnings from self-employment for self-employment tax purposes.

Net earnings from self-employment are included in earned income for EITC purposes. It is defined by cross-reference to the definition of net-earnings from self-employment under I.R.C. §1402(a). This ruling applies equally to the EITC. CCA 200022051 also provides insight regarding deduction of Schedule C expenses.

txmedia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you don't wish to take deductions you don't
> have to. That is my understanding. It is my
> choice to write off gas mileage or not write off
> gas mileage. If that keeps me from getting a nice
> refund - I don't file my mileage or any other job
> related expenses. Why would I if that would lower
> my refund?


WRONG WRONG WRONG.... If you are getting Earned Income Credit you MUST take all legal business deductions. The Taxpayer Advocate will help you get through this, but chances are you will be giving up the EIC you claimed. And if you fight too hard to keep it, they could disallow you from getting it for a certain number of years as a penalty for trying to cheat! I suggest you tell them, "Oops, sorry, I didn't know that" and get someone to amend your return and correct it.

You need to go to the IRS website and read the rules for Earned Income Credit to see where you went wrong. I have gotten EIC a couple of times (sadly) and my tax person had this questionnaire we had to go through and one of the questions had to do with whether I had taken ALL my allowable business deductions or not. You cannot artificially inflate your income to try to get more EIC. Go read about, don't take my word for it. I brought that up to my taxlady the first year, asked her what would happen if I didn't claim all my mileage and she said it wasn't legal.

Apparently I didn't refresh this thread before posting -- there were about 10 posts I only saw after I posted. Mary has copied chapter and verse from the IRS website with exactly what I came here to say.

The IRS suggested you file for EIC because you LIED to them about your net self-employment earnings.

You need to get professional help (take that however you like) and amend that tax return before the IRS sends you more than a polite inquiry.

rainy Wrote:
> I am not going to spend time figuring out if
> txmedia has more than one user name, but the links
> you posted from txmedia were from last July. None
> of the forums I have ever belonged to allow more
> than one user name, and neither of those accounts
> have been banned/closed. I do not know if txmedia
> has admitted being the other name or if this is
> just a suspicion, but I am not going to spend any
> more time researching anything. And even if
> txmedia is the other user name, people who involve
> themselves in threads where they don't like the
> person are asking for trouble, yet for some
> reason, several people who don't like tx seem to
> feel the need to post in his/her threads. Weird.

What is weird is your refusal to look at the facts even when the evidence is handed to you on a silver platter. Your position is you don't know, you don't care to find out what you don't know, but you feel very comfortable to state your opinion on things you don't know and can't be bothered to find out.

Ignorance is bliss?

txmedia's posts were old because she created the cheryljane username and started to post under that name and not the txmedia name. If you bother to actually read through the threads, you will see txmedia and cheryljane describing the same incidents with several MSCs. Then, "cheryljane" got called out publicly and stopped posting under that name. Recently, "txmedia" returned.

Again, if you actually bother to "research" the posting history of txmedia/cheryljane, you will also see that someone brought up the issue of unfairness because, by posting against those MSCs under multiple usernames, txmedia/cheryljane made it look like those MSCs were mistreating multiple shoppers. She first tried to deny she was using more than one username but then it was brought up that moderators could see the two names had the same IP address. Then, txmedia/cheryljane stopped trying to deny what she was doing.

If you bother to read the threads txmedia/cheryljane participated in, you will find that Mary was one of the regular posters who tried repeatedly to help txmedia/cheryljane. Some of the posters that you are criticizing for posting also tried to help her. Most of the time, she reacted quite negatively. At one point, she even implied she would do something to another poster if she and that poster were in physical proximity with each other instead of just being on the same internet forum.

It's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. When a poster with an attitude problem is ignored, the poster often complains, whines, or even resorts to a @#$%& routine. When a poster with a problematic history is not ignored, those who respond are criticized for responding, or belittled, or attacked.

Finally, people sometimes post not because (or not *only* because) a particular person posted. Sometimes, when something is posted that is of interest to many shoppers, and *especially* if false information is posted that may give readers the wrong idea, someone will speak up so the general readership of this forum will get another perspective.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2013 08:09AM by BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz.

shopgal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The part that drives me a little crazy about the
> 1099s is that some MSCs include both fees and
> reiumbursements. I'm not altogether sure how to
> make the numbers make sense to the IRS with those.
> This year, I just submitted the total fees earned
> and didn't muck around with the 1099s.
>
> Hoping my return doesn't get flagged.


I am sure everyone on this site realizes the frustration involved in this practice. Of particular interest to each of us is the idea that a 1099 may be issued because of the combined the reimbursements with the fees. Had the reimbursements been properly listed, the 1099 would not have been issued.

I have had this discussion with others and have been told that is why I am supposed to keep all my receipts. I am not a tax educated person. I do keep every receipt for every shop. It just seems to me, claiming a deduction to offset income that should not have been listed as income has negative implications to someone? I for one am curious. I wonder, exactly how does this problem affect me and my taxes. If anyone has a real clear understanding of the negative aspects on this topic, I for one would like to read his/her comments and thoughts.

I have noticed with several companies the information listed on the website, regarding payments made to me, do not make a breakdown to differentiate between the fees and reimbursements. That is an immediate red flag to me. Unfortunately, there just isn't all I can do about it. I have sent messages to the MSC's and I do not recall getting any responses.

Special note: I believe someone implied taking a deduction for mileage could put him/her into a higher tax payment. This sounds confusing? Personally, I have a mileage book. I logged every shop that I have ever completed in my mileage log. This log has been the most beneficial documentation that I have ever maintained. I have been keeping this logbook since 1988. Each year, claims for mileage have totaled thousands of dollars. However, this may be because I live in a more remote location. Nonetheless, as business people, we can't afford to overlook "tips" for tracking expenses.

BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rainy Wrote:
> > I am not going to spend time figuring out if
> > txmedia has more than one user name, but the
> links
> > you posted from txmedia were from last July.
> None
> > of the forums I have ever belonged to allow
> more
> > than one user name, and neither of those
> accounts
> > have been banned/closed. I do not know if
> txmedia
> > has admitted being the other name or if this is
> > just a suspicion, but I am not going to spend
> any
> > more time researching anything. And even if
> > txmedia is the other user name, people who
> involve
> > themselves in threads where they don't like the
> > person are asking for trouble, yet for some
> > reason, several people who don't like tx seem
> to
> > feel the need to post in his/her threads.
> Weird.
>
> What is weird is your refusal to look at the facts
> even when the evidence is handed to you on a
> silver platter. Your position is you don't know,
> you don't care to find out what you don't know,
> but you feel very comfortable to state your
> opinion on things you don't know and can't be
> bothered to find out.
>
> Ignorance is bliss?
>
> txmedia's posts were old because she created the
> cheryljane username and started to post under that
> name and not the txmedia name. If you bother to
> actually read through the threads, you will see
> txmedia and cheryljane describing the same
> incidents with several MSCs. Then, "cheryljane"
> got called out publicly and stopped posting under
> that name. Recently, "txmedia" returned.
>
> Again, if you actually bother to "research" the
> posting history of txmedia/cheryljane, you will
> also see that someone brought up the issue of
> unfairness because, by posting against those MSCs
> under multiple usernames, txmedia/cheryljane made
> it look like those MSCs were mistreating multiple
> shoppers. She first tried to deny she was using
> more than one username but then it was brought up
> that moderators could see the two names had the
> same IP address. Then, txmedia/cheryljane stopped
> trying to deny what she was doing.
>
> If you bother to read the threads
> txmedia/cheryljane participated in, you will find
> that Mary was one of the regular posters who tried
> repeatedly to help txmedia/cheryljane. Some of
> the posters that you are criticizing for posting
> also tried to help her. Most of the time, she
> reacted quite negatively. At one point, she even
> implied she would do something to another poster
> if she and that poster were in physical proximity
> with each other instead of just being on the same
> internet forum.
>
> It's damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
> When a poster with an attitude problem is ignored,
> the poster often complains, whines, or even
> resorts to a @#$%& routine. When a
> poster with a problematic history is not ignored,
> those who respond are criticized for responding,
> or belittled, or attacked.
>
> Finally, people sometimes post not because (or not
> *only* because) a particular person posted.
> Sometimes, when something is posted that is of
> interest to many shoppers, and *especially* if
> false information is posted that may give readers
> the wrong idea, someone will speak up so the
> general readership of this forum will get another
> perspective.


It's not about ignorance is bliss; it's about not really caring. I believe I stated my position quite clearly. There is no reason for me to spend any more time researching posts and trying to figure out who is who because I am not defending anything past or future here. If it is a fact that txmedia is the other poster, take it up with a moderator, find out why they allow something that is obviously so upsetting to several people, and/or IGNORE the poster(s). That is what most moderators in any forum would/should say...that if you have a problem with someone, ignore them. Common sense. Some people just can't help themselves, they have to involve themselves in situations that anyone who knows the whole story could predict will end up in drama.

My reason for commenting at all was based on this thread (not the past) and what was said here and here only, that is why I have no plans to spend more time researching. I am not involved in drama from other threads and this has gone on way too long already anyway. Bottom line: I did not view txmedia's response to Mary as rude, and I thought it was an overreaction that everyone was saying he/she had an attitude, was "retaliatory" and so forth. So I didn't blame tx when he/she said the hen comment. Apparently because of all the "history" other people decided it was rude, but reading it as someone who is not involved in all the drama/past and holds no grudges towards anyone involved, it was fine to me and I thought others were being rude to txmedia. If you think txmedia's 2nd post in this thread, which started all this silly drama, was retaliatory and attitude-filled (standing alone with no influence from anything in the past), okie dokie -- I don't. People bringing grudges over from other threads is much worse than any original offense txmedia supposedly did in this thread. Have allegedly legit reasons why you want to post in the threads of people you can't stand? Fine.... but you are entering a thread where the person probably doesn't like you either... so suck it up and don't expect sunshine and roses ....and don't whine about it yourself when things don't go well!

I think I have addressed everything. We don't and won't agree on this and I have said about all I can say and would prefer to move on. As I said, I will check back to see what walesmaven (or anyone) can come up with as far as his/her accusation about all the "numerous" threads I have supposedly called people names and made trouble in.

Rainy,
Since you have decided that researching threads is a waste of your time, I think that I will just agree with you and decide not to throw more "thread research" your way. I am aware that this will probably cause you to say, "See, wales cannot answer my challenge." If that is what you say when I refuse to go researching and quoting old threads, imagine what people are thinking when you even refuse to read the threads that others have spent time and energy to research!!!

Sorry, you do not get points for my refusal to play your game.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2013 01:21PM by walesmaven.

David Hall:

MSCs do report differently on their 1099s. Some of them include reimbursements and some do not. The easiest way to handle this is to keep up with your own fees and reimbursements separately so that you have one total number equal to all the money you received for fees and another equal to the money you received for reimbursements. You report your fee total added to your reimbursement total as income. Under expenses, you report your total for reimbursed expenses. By doing it this way, you don't have to worry about whether the MSC included reimbursements on the 1099 or not, because it won't matter.

I'm not sure what you read about not reporting mileage resulting in a higher tax payment, but I suspect it may have been a statement on this thread by a poster who was taking a position of not reporting expenses (such as mileage) in order to receive a higher payout of earned income credit from the government. The earned income credit is a wealth redistribution plan designed to provide aid to the working poor and when used honestly it provides financial aid to the needy. Many families have employed wage earners who still do not earn enough to rise above the poverty level and adequately provide for basic needs. The earned income credit is designed to assist those needy families. This is a government program that has allowed many struggling families with small children to stay afloat. The money paid out under this program is not a tax refund, because it is not a refund of taxes paid. It is a form of welfare assistance for which the application is the annual income tax return.

The earned income credit is figured on a scale that looks like a bell curve. The straight line at the base of the curve starts out at zero earnings and zero earned income credit and progresses toward the right to a number with high earnings and zero earned income credit. On the left side of the bell curve we have lower income and lower EIC payouts. As the curve rises toward the top, the income increases and the EIC payout increases, with a maximum payout at the top of the bell curve. When the curve tops out and starts down the other side, continually increased earnings result in less earned income credit until it again reaches zero.

Since the earned income credit pays out the most to those whose income falls toward the top of the bell curve, there are those who will manipulate their income to reach that point. For example, let's just say the top of the bell curve for X taxpayer is $18,000. If X taxpayer reports all deductible expenses (mileage) on self employment income, X reports $432. By not deducting mileage, X reports $17,950. That puts X at the top of the bell curve. In an effort to manipulate the system and maximize their EIC payout, they fake their numbers. They get more money by reporting more income up to a point, so they jack with their numbers to report at that point.

For the legitimate taxpayer, claiming all business deductions will result in a lower tax bill, not a higher tax bill. For the cheater, not claiming all business deductions may result in a higher earned income tax credit.

Mary nailed it. That's exactly how it was explained to me. (you're not my tax preparer posting here under an alias, are you Mary?)

And in accordance with the advice given by rainy, I will ignore rainy and give him no more soup. And now that I have remembered that *I* was the one cheryljane threatened with bodily harm if she came into my proximity . . . I think I'll again stop trying to feed her too.

So . . . DON'T amend your return, and I hope the IRS nails you to the wall, cheryljane.

BTW, did you know that ANYONE who knows the name and address of a tax cheat can report them to the IRS and receive a reward for doing so if the recover unpaid tax as a result of their report?

No, that's not a threat at all. Just helpful information given up as my last spoonful of soup for you.

That's true, itsasecret. Usually when there's an audit that uncovers willful failure to report accurately, the IRS will go back a few years and audit those returns also. Although we're advised to keep X years of returns in case of audits, in case of intentional misconduct the IRS can go back indefinitely. Any reward would be based on the total money recovered for all years audited. All amounts determined at issue would be due the IRS, plus fees and penalties, for all years. Reporting income and expenses completely is a plan that leads to better sleep at night.

walesmaven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rainy,
> Since you have decided that researching threads is
> a waste of your time, I think that I will just
> agree with you and decide not to throw more
> "thread research" your way. I am aware that this
> will probably cause you to say, "See, wales cannot
> answer my challenge." If that is what you say
> when I refuse to go researching and quoting old
> threads, imagine what people are thinking when you
> even refuse to read the threads that others have
> spent time and energy to research!!!
>
> Sorry, you do not get points for my refusal to
> play your game.



The reason you can't post them is because there are not any. I never made any claims about anyone's past posts, so claiming you won't back up your claims because I won't research other user names is hogwash. You were the one who made the accusation about me. But that is okay. I have a feeling you looked for them and cannot find them. My post history is there for anyone to see, and I invite anyone to look at it. And if they do, they can judge for themselves the integrity and truth of your accusation.

Although accurate and well meaning advice has been given on this thread, we may agree in hindsight the second post advising the OP to consult the IRS directly would have been the most desirable route. Sometimes we are given a gift we can't recognize. If that suggestion had been taken, the statements about not reporting expenses in order to manipulate the earned income credit would have never been made and many us would have been spared disgust and anguish caused by subsequent statements made.

Refreshingly, I have received newly offered criticisms of being insulting, arrogant, and lecture-y. I happily add those accusations to my ever growing collection, and thank you, Rainy, for your efforts to improve my disposition. You didn't really have a dog in the fight, and I admire your effort to stand up for someone you thought was being treated unfairly. What I can't understand is your calling me passive aggressive. I thought I was altogether knock down and drag out aggressive. I must try to do better. Passive will not get it done.

I disagree with your suggestion we should not engage in a thread if we have differences with the OP. As far as I know, an OP does not lay down cash on the barrelhead for exclusive rights to a thread and it is open to all of us. Cheryljane is free to blog as she pleases on her personal blog about whatever she cares to discuss and she is in charge of that personal blog. She is not in charge here, and not likely to be.

I am going to suggest once more that on tax issues, like politics and religion, this is not the best place.