• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tax_Counsel

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor
  1. It makes a difference because if the mortgage holder files for foreclosure in county court that court does not have the power to hear a foreclosure case and the foreclosure action may be dismissed. The lender then must refile in the supreme court (which in NY is the general trial court). In short, it can buy the homeowner some time.
  2. Yes, you will need to pay federal and California state income tax on the rental income you receive. You will also have to pay federal and California state income tax on any gain you realize from the sale of the property. How much income tax you pay depends on how much income you have, how the rental activity is organized, and what elections you make with respect to the rental operation. As a foreign person owning U.S. real estate there are special rules that apply what you will need to know about. You will have, as you know, property tax in California to pay, too. You may also have to obtain one or more business licenses to conduct the rental activity. I'd strongly recommend you contact a California tax attorney who is experienced with foreign persons who do business (and in particular real estate businesses) in California for advice to ensure you understand all the tax obligations you have and what that will cost you.
  3. Wow, you still don't get it, huh? I stated in my earlier reply that all an impressive office means is that the attorney has the clients to support paying the rent for that (that is, if they have been in practice very long, anyway). But that doesn’t logically mean the lawyers there are actually good. I gave you just two examples of attorneys whom you aptly called “bottom feeders” who have very impressive offices. I could have given you more. They prove my point: they have impressive offices but are actually pretty lousy lawyers. Yet you keep asserting that an impressive office must mean the lawyer is good. No. It just means the lawyer gets clients. Most clients have very little experience picking lawyers and some of those are easily impressed by a nice office. You apparently are one of them. A nice office doesn't tell you jack about how good or bad the lawyer is. I guess you don't know much about what tax lawyers do if you think all they do is prepare returns. Most tax attorneys, including myself, prepare very few returns for clients because clients can get that job done more cheaply at an accountant or some basic tax prep shop. My practice largely involves litigating tax matters, mostly in federal courts but also in state courts as well. I also handle other types of business related litigation. So you see, I know quite well what litigation involves and what it takes to win. But even if that were not the case, any lawyer who has studied the UCC could tell you the same things about it that the lawyers here have told you. It’s actually not that difficult for someone who knows how to read the law to figure out. It doesn’t take a litigator to tell you that. You have a lot to learn about lawyers and the practice of law. It is clear to me that you know very little about it. I’ve already told that I accept that there is no TOU. I also explained why the lack of a TOU would present a potential problem for you, at least if you are intent on continuing to sell on that platform. But you simply replied to that by saying: So you evidently do not care that you may get kicked off that platform at any time because you are not protected by any contract. So why litigate this and spend the money if you don’t care? The easiest solution to your objection to the platform’s decision to make you handle customer disputes a certain way would be to leave the platform and sell your goods some other way. So why not do that? Without any protection here, once you start litigation the platform could well say it doesn’t like dealing with you and kick you off. If you want to take that risk, that’s up to you. But at least you hopefully understand the risk that is there. Now you are being a hypocrite. You were the first to start the name calling in this forum, and have kept it going throughout the thread. So don't now try to act like you only engage in substantive debate. Going by this thread I'd say you can't, in fact, argue with common sense and without the name calling. Maybe this thread is somehow different than you usually relate to people, but my guess is that's not the case.
  4. Unfortunately, you know less than you think you do. You also assume a lot of things that you ought not assume. For example, you seem to assume that everyone responding here is a lawyer. While I and a couple of others are lawyers, most responding here are not. This is one example of you assuming things you ought not assume. You assume that a large impressive office must mean the lawyers are very good. But really the only logical conclusion you can draw from it is that the law firm apparently makes enough to pay for it. That's because your assumption that most clients really know about the legal profession and how to pick a lawyer is flawed. Most don’t have much knowledge of that at all. There are some, like you apparently, who decide that the way to pick a lawyer is to look for the firm with the most impressive offices on the mistaken assumption that the lawyers there must be good. Unfortunately, that assumption is flawed. But there are lawyers who are well aware of that kind of thinking and who get impressive offices knowing that will attract clients. Some of the lawyers employing that marketing tactic are not very good. Nevertheless they get a steady stream of clients because the marketing works. Let me give you a two examples from my state. First, there is a personal injury law firm that has very impressive offices and advertises extensively bragging about the settlements it has won for clients. The marketing works; it brings in a load of unsophisticated clients hoping to get help with compensation for their injuries. What this firm does, though, is make fast settlements with the insurance companies for the defendants. The settlements are therefore very low, often 25% or less of what the case is really worth. The insurance companies love this firm because they know they’ll get off with a cheap settlement. The firm’s clients get some quick cash and are happy, oblivious to the fact that they could have gotten a whole lot more with a much better lawyer. So sure, his impressive offices indicate a lot of clients. But it doesn’t mean he’s any good. Most lawyers around here shake their head when they hear his name, knowing just how badly he really does in taking care of his clients. He sacrifices his clients for a fast buck. Second, there is a tax lawyer here who has impressive offices and markets a claim about how he can settle most tax debts for “pennies on the dollar.” He accepts every client who walks through the door, happily taking their money to submit an offer in compromise (OIC) to the IRS, knowing full well that the vast majority of those will be rejected. The IRS accepts very few OIC requests. When the IRS rejects the OIC for most of his clients, he basically just shrugs his shoulders, says "hey, I tried, but the IRS is being mean and not willing to deal" and sends the client on his/her way. He keeps the money the client paid, of course. Terrible lawyer. But he has a steady stream of clients because those impressive offices make the clients think he must be good. He’s not good, but the clients do not know that. Also, even if most of the lawyers in a firm are good, not all of them may be good. For example, when I was the law clerk for a very well respected federal judge we had a huge breach of contract case that involved, in part, the federal government (which is why it was in federal court). One of the parties to the lawsuit was represented by a firm that legitimately had a very good reputation as an outstanding law firm overall (and had very impressive offices). But the particular lawyer of the firm handling this case was very poor. The briefs he submitted were very badly researched. I easily found the relevant cases that he had somehow missed. The judge remarked how shocked he was that this firm employed a lawyer that was this bad. But again, the client had no idea his particular lawyer was an idiot. These are but a few examples of the situations in which lawyers with impressive offices have turned out be less than stellar lawyers. It is simply not a good leap of logic to assume that impressive offices must mean the lawyer is good. Certainly some firms with impressive offices are very good (even though, as I say, there is still the chance that some lawyers in that firm may not be good). But some lawyers with impressive offices are terrible. They still get clients, though, because most people are clueless about how to pick a lawyer. So, the bottom line is that telling me your lawyer has impressive offices does not impress me at all. Sure, they might be good. But they might not be. I don't know them, so I cannot say either way. All I can say is that if your lawyer is making the kinds of arguments you have made here then I suspect he or she isn’t very good. Of course, you might not be properly explaining the lawyer's theory, too. But if I were you, before I plunked down my money to pay this lawyer I'd be asking some pointed questions about what theory he or she is going to use and what kind of outcome might be expected in the case. By the way, the fact that you think you, a person without a college degree and no real knowledge or experience in law or the legal profession can school me about the practice of law is extremely funny. I've been a lawyer for many years and know the practice of law very well. You might try getting off your high horse, lose the arrogant attitude, and realize that maybe a lawyer knows more about this stuff than you do and try to learn what you can. That knowledge could help you a lot in discussing this case with your lawyer. But if you want to antagonize people who are willing to help you and cut off a source of potentially useful information, then by all means keep up with the approach you have been using because you are doing a great job of turning off people here.
  5. The military did not owe you any obligation to prosecute your attackers. The decision to prosecute or not for offenses by military personnel is made by the commander of the accused. He or she may decline to pursue the matter for any number of reasons and has no particular obligation to the victim to proceed or even to necessarily take the victim’s views into account. It is up the commander to decide how much investigation to do, what charges, if any, to pursue, etc. The Marine Corps has put up a fairly easy to understand summary of the military justice process here: Military Justice Facts. Moreover, if this took place many years ago is almost certainly too late for the military to act on it now.
  6. It is not the case that the only reason that they refused him is because they had protected patient information about him. It could be, for example, that they do not treat patients with that kind of condition, they do not offer pain management services, they don't take any new patients, or whatever. So you are assuming something that might not be true. As for a government blacklist, I highly doubt that is the source of the problem. Why would any government agency care about this? Moreover, federal law would prohibit an agency from doing the kind of blacklist you suggest. It is more likely that the doctors were given some kind of information about him from which they made their decision (though, as I point out above, that is not the only possibility). The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides protection for patients of covered entities (and most health care providers are covered entities) for the privacy of their medical records. HIPAA does not give a patient a right to sue for violations of the Act but the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers HIPAA and may take action against violators including imposing fines. So HHS would be the agency to report any improper disclosures of protected health information (PHI).
  7. If you have not been granted custody of the child by a court then the mother (who I assume still has legal custody of the child) may claim her son from you at any time and you would have no basis to refuse to allow the mother to take the child. If you fear for the child’s safety then the place to start is to report the situation to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Child Protective Services (CPS) program. That link will take you to the CPS home page where you can get information on reporting situations of abuse and severe neglect of a child. If CPS sustains the allegations of abuse it will act to protect the child. This may include removing the child from the home until the mother cleans up her act. That may involved placing the child with foster parents or another relative of the child. It is not automatic the child would be placed with you but you could certainly express your desire to care for the child. But until CPS acts the mother retains her legal right to her child, and you cannot interfere with that right.
  8. There are two points to consider here. First, as a whole the sentence strikes me as one of opinion, not fact. What is realistic or reasonable are matters of opinion. It is clear that the author is not using the term wrongful termination in the legal sense since the sentence refers to the termination and other actions of the manager being due to the manager's belief that the people involved were not meeting expectations. Firing someone for not meeting expectations is not wrongful termination in the legal sense. So the author is not claiming the manager did anything illegal. Rather, it is the opinion of the ex-employee that the manager acted wrongfully in terminating these people. Opinions, even negative ones, are not defamation. Second, what damages did you suffer as a result of this? Were you fired, demoted, or had your pay cut as a result of what this person said? If not, then even if the statement was defamatory you still have nothing for which to sue. Lawsuits (with some exceptions not applicable here) are about compensation for harm caused; if you suffered no harm then you would get nothing should you sue.
  9. It is discrimination. It is just not illegal discrimination. Most forms of discrimination are legal. Federal law only bars discrimination in renting if the basis for the decision is the tenant’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status. Illinois law bars discrimination in renting because of the tenant’s race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment), pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, age (40 and over), order of protection status, marital status, sexual orientation (which includes gender-related identity), unfavorable military discharge, physical and mental disability, and familial status. Unless the reason for rejecting you as a tenant is one of those listed reasons then it is not illegal discrimination. So if it is truly the case that the landlord is rejecting you because you do not have a job, that is legal for the landlord to do.
  10. Then you miss the point. I never said there had to be a TOU. I'll accept that (as unusual as it would be) that there is no TOU or contract of any kind since you say that is what the situation is. I can only go by the facts as you give them. But if there is no contract, no TOU/TOS, no agreement with this platform of any kind whatsoever, then you have no right to sell on that platform without the consent of the platform. So if you want to sell on that platform, you need to do so under the conditions the platform wants or it can kick you off. Without a contract you have no protection against the platform simply saying it doesn’t want to deal with you and kicking you out. It's like if you are standing on my property without a lease or contract of any kind that would give you a right to be there. I can kick you off my property at any time because you have nothing giving you a right to be there. If you want to stay on my property in that circumstance you conform your behavior while there to what I want or I boot you off. Same with the platform. It’s a pretty basic concept; I'm surprised you don’t seem to be familiar with it. Your lawyers may be good. They may not. Telling me how impressive their offices are, how big the law firm is, etc., tells me nothing about how good the lawyers are. Maybe those things are how you define how good a lawyer is. I don't rate lawyers based on that. I rate them based on their knowledge of the law and effectiveness in representing their clients. I've known lawyers at the biggest, most impressive looking law firms in the states in which I practice who were idiots and lawyers at small firms with basic offices who were absolutely brilliant. I’ll say it again: your lawyers might be good — but just based on what you have said here I’m skeptical of that. Perhaps you just don't fully understand the theory your attorneys are planning to pursue. Perhaps you just haven’t done a very good job explaining it. But whatever it is, you have so far not laid out a very compelling argument for your position.
  11. The problem with that argument is that you are ignoring that the seller may agree to give up or modify any right that he or she has. The platform is telling you that to sell using its service you will need to agree to handle customer disputes in a certain way. You don’t have to do that if you don’t want to, but then the platform has no legal obligation to let you sell using its services, either. If the above argument is the one your lawyers are pursuing then I seriously question whether they are anywhere near as good as you seem to think they are. Of course, it may be that you have not accurately conveyed the theory your attorneys plan to use. Your understanding of the law and how law firms work is not very accurate, and it's leading you to assume some things that are not correct. Maybe there is some good claim to pursue against the platform, but nothing you’ve said here suggests one. And all we can go on is what you have told us.
  12. This is not a forum to find an attorney. It is a forum to ask for general information about the law. Had you been employed by a private employer there would be no question that your termination was quite legal as no law prohibits a private employer from terminating an employee because he was arrested over allegations of selling an illegal substance. If you worked for a public school, you might have more protection than the private employee, but that will depend very much on what the civil service rules for your position provide. Most western and southern states do not provide extensive civil service protection for employees so it is possible that Nevada law does not give you a lot of protection from termination in this circumstance. In short, other than the union contract, it may well be that your position was not much better protected than that of a private sector employee. It is more likely that your union contract did provide greater protection, but that is a contract matter and something your union should have helped you with if the school district breached the contract. In any event, a breach of contract problem is certainly not a criminal matter. Nothing in your post indicates that anything here was a violation of federal law. The federal government can only prosecute for violations of federal law; most crimes are state law crimes prosecuted in state courts. In my experience when a lot of law firms turn down representing you in a matter it is because they see little chance of the claim succeeding. It is extremely unlikely that there is some kind of vast conspiracy here against you.
  13. The basic problem is this: your refund on a tax return that accrues prior to the date the bankruptcy petition is filed is an asset of the bankrupt estate and the trustee may claim that to pay your creditors. If you filed your bankruptcy petition sometime this year then the entire refund from 2015 had accrued by 12/31/15 and thus would be an asset of the bankrupt estate. It does not matter when you file the return. What matters that the refund relates to a time period that was prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. This is all laid out in the Bankruptcy Code. The IRS, knowing of your bankruptcy filing and being one of your creditors in the bankruptcy, certainly isn’t about to send you the refund when the bankruptcy code says that the refund isn’t yours — it belongs to the bankrupt estate and thus to your creditors. Thus the IRS’ action here was not arbitrary and capricious at all. Rather, it is what the IRS does in every case like yours.
  14. Your wife signed the contract and she could be held to that contract. It doesn’t matter that she is not on the deed to the home. (She very likely does have a marital interest in the home anyway, even though she is not on the deed.) However, federal law allows a consumer to rescind a contract that was the result of an in-home solicitation (e.g. door to door sales) by sending a written notice of the rescission to the seller within three days of entering into the contract. Put more simply, your wife may opt out of the contract here if she sends the furnace company a letter canceling the contract within three days of entering into the contract. For more information see the following: cooling off period for in-home sales. Some states have similar laws and if your state has such a law it might allow you more than the three days federal law allows. As you did not mention the state I cannot give you any information on that. The contract may also be void or voidable if the seller engaged in fraud or in activity that violates federal or state consumer protection laws. You may contact the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or your state’s consumer protection agency to see if this company violated any of those laws and if they did find out what remedies you have for it.
  15. Before a court may hear the case, it must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. That means that the defendant will need to have sufficient ties to California to be subject to jurisdiction in that state and he must be properly served. Whether his ties to California are enough for the matter to be heard in that state is something your friend ought to discuss with the lawyer he hires to help him do this. If you are not a lawyer you should not be advising him on how to do this as you may end up committing unauthorized practice of law and create legal troubles for yourself in the process. It may be that the better thing to do if a restraining order is needed is to file for it in the proper court in his home state.