• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tax_Counsel last won the day on June 17

Tax_Counsel had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Tax_Counsel

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor
  1. If you succeed in reinstating the dissolved nonprofit, then the answers to your questions will depend on what the corporate charter and by-laws say about how board members are changed, etc. So you would need to get those documents to answer those questions. Is there some reason why those of you who are interested in pursuing this do not just start up a new organization to carry out your activities? If you do that, you won’t need to bother getting any consent from former board members or whomever from the old organization. You'd need to start fresh, with a new name, etc., but considering the old had been inactive for about five years there is likely nothing of value from the old organization you need anyway.
  2. The most likely answer to that is that the OP cannot afford the payments on it and sought to modify the mortgage. But whatever the reason is, it doesn’t impact the answer to the question actually asked by the OP.
  3. You'll get a Form 1099-S from the broker or buyer that will tell the IRS about the sale and the sale amount. You’d need to report the sale on your income tax return but you’ll show that there is no gain, so there won’t be any tax to pay as a result of the sale.
  4. If you bought the home for $489,000, then that is your starting basis in the home. If you then sell the home for just $475,000 then you have a nondeductible capital loss of $14,000 (assuming no depreciation or anything that reduced the basis in the home, of course). See IRS Publication 523 for a lot of good information on the federal income tax treatment of selling your home. California follows the federal tax treatment for this for state income tax, too.
  5. If you owe $90k on the loan then that is what you must pay the lender to clear the lien on the property unless the lender is willing to release the lien for less. Any buyer of the property will want to get the lien released prior to closing on the property. If the property is truly only worth $40k then the lender might be willing to release the lien if it gets all the sales proceeds. That would allow the sale to go through for the $40k. This is known as a “short sale” because the amount of the sale comes up short of satisfying the full loan you owe. But even in a short sale you would still owe the remaining $50k to the lender unless the lender also agrees to discharge (forgive) the debt as part of the deal. You can ask the lender to approve a short sale and you can ask the lender to discharge whatever is left over, but the lender does not have to agree to do either of those things.
  6. I suggest you get another lawyer. There is no way anyone here can tell you what to do next in your case since we know nothing about it except that the case file is huge and that you claim your ex is jealous, vindictive, angry and has stated a lot of lies about you during these court proceedings. That's really nothing to go on. You think the courts have it out for you, but that’s probably not the case unless you’ve done something to tick off court personnel. I’ve seen lots of clients in divorce and a lot of them swear up and down that the judge is biased against them because they aren't getting what they want. Yet when I look their court proceedings there isn't any bias there. Family law cases in particular are very emotional and the parties involved highly biased. They don’t see things objectively and thus get upset when the judge doesn’t see it the way they do. It's easy to think everyone sees the other party the way you do, but others have not had the experiences with your ex that you have had. All the judge can go by is what is presented in court. And that may not paint the same picture of your ex as the image you have of her in your head. Court litigation has a lot of procedural rules to follow, and then there is knowing the law itself. It takes skill to plan out the strategy and make a convincing case for the court. That's what lawyers are trained to do. Most pro se litigants know very little about the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence, the substantive law, or how put together a good compelling case to present to the court. As a result, they tend to do poorly. I've seen more than a few lose just on procedural screw-ups alone. That’s why for best results you need a lawyer to represent you. I realize that this is not what you want to hear. But understand that what you have told us is about the same as if I asked you what play to run next in a football game and all I had told you about the game is that the game has taken a very long time, the other team is angry and vindictive and the refs are against me. That’s not enough to figure out the next play, is it? You’d want to know the details of the game: what the score was, who had the ball, what down it was, what the field position was, and what had happened on previous plays, right? Same thing here. Without knowing the details of your case, there is no way to tell you what to do next.
  7. As posted, I think it is just you. First, you seem to assume that the employer thinks that all your friends must be the same race as you. Why do assume that? Logically there isn’t any good basis to believe that all the friends a person has are the same race as that person. I have friends of a variety of races. You might too, for all I know, and for all your employer knows. Second, there is no law that requires a private employer to interview minorities for positions or to hire a set number of minority persons. What the law requires is that the employer not discriminate on the basis of race or color. So nothing requires that an employer go out of its way to recruit minority applicants. So if an employer were intent on not hiring minority applicants it certainly wouldn’t go about making any special effort to look for minority applicants. It is actually more risky legally for an employer to get a lot of minority applicants and never hire any of them than it is to just not get minority applicants at all (so long as it does nothing to discourage such applicants). Given all this, the most likely explanation for the employer’s request is that it is genuinely interested in whether you might know someone qualified and interested in the job. That would make the company’s efforts to fill the job a lot easier. It certainly does not strike me as something related to race discrimination.
  8. mikeyd1975, the post you responded to is over 5 years old. The OP’s cousin has certainly got an answer one way or the other on what was going to happen to him by now and it's unlikely the OP will come back to see your reply. It helps to look at the date on the post you are responding to so that you don’t post to a dead thread.
  9. Simply renting a place for a long period of time, even 100 years, would not give the tenant any claim to ownership of the property he or she is renting.
  10. Make your request for the changes in writing and note in the letter that you making the request pursuant to your rights under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the related regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), specifically 45 C.F.R. § 164.526. The provider must respond to your request. If the provider refuses to amend the records, you may at the very least submit a rebuttal explaining your disagreement with the records which must be included in your medical records.
  11. None. This is not a case in federal court; it is a case in state court and state court rules determine when another party may intervene. Your post indicates that Party C was merely a witness and has a video of the damage being done to the unit. That would not be a sufficient basis for Party C to intervene. Rather, Party B should have called Party C to testify and to set the foundation for introducing the video as evidence of how the damage was caused. Why didn't Party B do that? Note that it may be irrelevant who caused the damage in a lawsuit between the tenant and landlord anyway. A lease typically obligates the tenant to return the leased premises to the landlord in the same condition it was at the start of the lease. If the tenant does not do that, he violates the lease. In that situation it does not matter who caused the damage to the unit; the tenant is still obligated to return the unit in proper condition to the landlord. The tenant might sue the party who did cause the damage for what it cost to return the unit to proper condition, but that’s a separate matter between the tenant and the person who caused the damages (though the party who caused the damages might be included as a third party defendant by the tenant, perhaps). Your post indicates that Party B and Party C did not understand very well how this works and likely did not have a lawyer advising them. I suggest that Party B see a lawyer now to determine if he or she has any way out of the judgment at this point. And Party C, if merely witness as you indicate, would have no basis to intervene so he or she shouldn't be filing anything in court on this.
  12. Well, did you tell the tax preparer about the interest before the return was done? Did you give the preparer a copy of the Forms 1099-INT that you received for the interest you were paid? When you were given a copy of the return to look over before you signed it and didn’t see the interest included on it, did you ask why? You may certainly complain to the Block office that prepared your return and see if it will do anything for you. Note that even if the return was done correctly you would have owed the tax on the interest, so the preparer isn't liable to pay for that. If there were penalties imposed because of that error, you can likely get those penalties abated due to preparer error. Block should be willing to do that request for you.
  13. There is no magic language for this. If you are going to assert that the search the agency did was insufficient, you need to be able to explain why you think it is insufficient. Just saying you think the agency used a template for the response is not good enough. Agencies may use a template for a response if it fits the situation. What you need is an understanding of how the agency keeps the records you were seeking and to show that the records you sought would not be found in the systems the agency searched or that there is another place where the records are commonly kept that could have also been readily searched that was not searched. If the agency can convince the court that the records are kept in the database that it searched and the search came up empty, then the court will hold that the agency did the search needed, there are no responsive documents, and rule in the agency’s favor on the FOIA claim. You cannot make the agency address what you want addressed. Either it does or it doesn’t. All you can do is make your arguments that favor ordering the agency to turn over the records you seek. You need to keep your case focused on those things that advance the claim you brought and avoid getting drawn off into tangents that are not related to your claim. Remember what a FOIA lawsuit is all about: it’s about getting the agency to release records responsive to your request that it held at the time the request was received. If the agency did not have the records at the time your request was received then it could not produce them and a court cannot order the agency to produce records it does not have. So if the records did exist at one time but were destroyed before the FOIA request was received, the FOIA lawsuit will not get you anywhere. The fact that the agency might have had the records when you made your first FOIA request some years ago is an issue that should have been litigated in an appeal to the courts regarding the response made in that first request. You cannot argue that first FOIA search now in an appeal on the second request you made. There is no remedy provided by federal statute specifically for the destruction by a federal agency of records prior to the time provided in the rules issued by the National Archives (the GRS schedules). FOIA is not the vehicle for addressing that problem. You would need to find some other cause of action to bring against the agency or the United States for that.
  14. Trust me when I tell you that it is almost impossible to get a federal tax liability of $60,000 settled for $1,000 in an offer in compromise (OIC), which is the program that is available to settle tax liabilities for less than the full amount owed due to inability to pay. I used to investigate and review OIC claims when I was at the IRS, and small dollar offers like that are not going to be considered except in extreme circumstances because in most cases the IRS will determine it could collect something more than just the $1,000 that is being offered over the period of collection. To get an OIC approved, you have to convince the IRS that what you are offering is more than the IRS could possibly get using any of its collection methods over the entire period of collection. This sets a pretty high bar for acceptance of OIC requests. Don't buy into those ads you see from offer mills that promise they can settle your tax debts for “pennies on the dollar.” A lot of those places are pretty much rip offs.
  15. I think the phrase that you meant was “pass-through” or “pass-on” charge as there is no word “passon” in English. Under Florida law, there is a distinction between pass-through charges and pass-on charges. If the lot owner is passing through to you a share of the real estate property tax the lot owner pays on on the land, that is a pass-on charge. That charge is allowed under certain conditions, most notably that the charge must be spelled out in your lease prior to the landlord passing on the charge and the charge must not already be included in the base rent. Florida has no individual income tax. For federal income tax, the pass on charge for the lot property taxes are not deductible. The reason why is that federal law requires both of the following be met for you to deduct a property tax: (1) you must own the property on which the tax is imposed; (2) you must have actually paid that tax in the year for which you are claiming the deduction. Because you don't own the land on which your home sits you cannot deduct the real estate property taxes imposed on that land. Basically this charge is part of your rent, and your rent is not deductible. Your mobile home itself is subject to an annual license fee in Florida. You must display the MH sticker on the home after you pay this license fee. This license fee is based on the length of the mobile home. This fee is not deductible on your federal income tax because the tax is not based on the value of the home and thus is not a property tax. If you fail to pay the license fee and display the MH sticker, the property tax assessor may impose a personal property tax on the home, which will generally be a lot higher than the license fee. This personal property tax you may deduct because it is a property tax that is imposed on property that you own. But it is better for you to pay the license fee and get the MH sticker even though you cannot deduct the license fee because you pay more with the property tax and deducting it on your federal income tax return won't be enough to make up the extra you pay for the property tax over what you pay for the license fee. For more on the taxation of mobile homes in Florida, see the following from the Florida Department of Revenue: That depends on what your lease agreement says.