Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/09/2019 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    She can't stop the grandparents from claiming anything on their returns. For the years 2018 through 2025, as the tax law stands today, the dependent exemption is zero and thus there is no tax benefit for claiming a dependent. There are the child tax credits, however, and those credits do depend in part on whether the taxpayer would qualify to claim the kids as their dependents. All she needs to do is claim the child related tax benefits on her return that she qualifies to take. If someone else claims the same tax benefit for the same child the IRS will catch that on computer matching about a year after the returns are filed and spit out letters to each of them to start the process of verifying which one was entitled to those benefits. The one not entitled to it will have to pay back the tax they saved from the benefit, as well as interest and possibly a penalty, too. Note that if both of you file electronically and claim the same benefit(s) for the same person the IRS will reject the second filed electronic return. All that means is that the person with the rejected return will need to file on paper instead and wait about 4 weeks or so longer to get any refund check. That short delay is the only disadvantage to filing second. So no need for her to get overly worked up in January simply to file first. I'll not get into the details here of what the requirements are to claim the dependent exemption or the child tax credit. She can read those rules in Publication 501 (dependents) and Publication 972 (child and dependent credit). If she's interested in amending prior year returns she'd need to look at the prior year versions of those forms as the rules change a bit from year to year, especially the changes from 2017 to 2018 that occurred with the Republican Tax Act passed in December 2017. Note that it may be that the grandparents were entitled to one or more of the dependent exemptions they claimed during the years everyone was living in their home, so she'd need to read the rules carefully for those years. She can only amend returns as old as 2016 now and get a refund. It's too late for years before 2016 unless she paid that tax within the last two years.
  2. 1 point
    I am guessing that your daughter was kind enough and smart enough not to claim her children as dependents (before now) because she realized there would be a conflict/or confusion with the IRS about this, and so your daughter graciously backed off from claiming them if she knew that the grandparents had already done so. If your daughter had gone ahead and filed using her children as dependents, the matter would have been looked into before now. Your daughter can go ahead and claim the dependents on her return at any time, and it would be better if she files first, but if she doesn't, it won't matter in the end. When the IRS gets your daughter's return and the grandparents' return and sees that the Social Security Numbers for the children match on both returns, they will begin to investigate to determine who is the correct party who is eligible to claim. The IRS will send your daughter and the grandparents a form or notice about how the correction will be made. Your daughter needs to ask whether she should file an amended federal income tax return for any previous year's tax returns where someone else erroneously claimed her children as dependents and maybe she can receive a refund. I don't know whether the grandparents will be asked to pay back the IRS for any monies they wrongfully claimed and were not entitled to claim. If you have any questions about this you can discuss with the IRS on their toll-free number or with a local federal income tax preparer.
  3. 1 point
    Fuzzz

    Traffic stop

    Wow talk about doing some Olympic style contorting on that one. You are trying to split hairs but are on the wrong side. That law does not make the conversation itself illegal, just the content of it. You could go and strike up a conversation with anyone and talk to them for hours on end and it be legal. But the second you asked them to do a specific act it would then be illegal. The words and intent would make it illegal, not the act of conversing with someone. Also it does not specify that it would need to be a conversation. You could pass a note, send an email, old fashion snail mail, or any other way you could get your request across. So no this does not come close to "prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process". It just prevents someone from going up to someone and asking for a specific thing. That is close, but cot completely accurate. The supreme court has sated "one must not look at whether a party felt "free to leave," but whether a party felt free to decline or terminate the encounter. The Court held that in the absence of intimidation or harassment, Bostick could have refused the search request. The test of whether a "reasonable person" felt free to decline or terminate a search presupposes his or her innocence." This case dealt with a consent search but has been used as the standard for consensual encounters. Even in cases where police have blocked in vehicles, that did not automatically convert it to a 4th amendment seizure. No this would not clearly demonstrate that. The OP stated he pulled into Walmart with the intent to go inside. Last I checked you couldn't drive a truck into Walmart to get milk. Clearly the OP would have to park his vehicle and get out.The officers could have legally parked their vehicles to the front and rear of OP's truck after he stopped. He never stated that he was blocked in, if they activated their lights, or if the used some other form of authority to make him believe he was not free terminate the encounter. Just that one was positioned to the front, and one to the rear of his truck. Beyond that the OP stated his intent was to presumably walk inside the store to pick up milk. If his truck was temporarily blocked by the parked cruisers this would not stop or obstruct him from merely walking inside as he had already planned prior to the encounter. No you are clearly not a lawyer and should definitely do some research before posting advice and getting into arguments with people who have clearly done that.
  4. 1 point
    While I don't really think this is the sort of thing that should cause DFCS to become involved, given the circumstances, why don't they stop doing this? If that's the one and only issue that might cause DFCS to become involved, discontinuing this activity is an absolute no-brainer. Are they so addicted that they cannot stop for a few months? Given these circumstances, a POA would not do much of anything (except as noted above). While I don't know the details of GA guardianship law, it's likely that, if you sought a guardianship, notice would have to be given to the other grandparents.
  5. -1 points
    Kreshay Caswell

    Juliano Fernandes needs advice

    I love my car insurance need any advice please ask me
  6. -1 points
    VeraCaUSA

    Traffic stop

    Your statement that anyone else could have done the same thing that the poster described happened to him is totally bogus. For one, the poster's statement was that the police officers parked their cars in front of and behind his vehicle while he was sitting in their vehicle in and of itself would indicate that either officer, or both officers were knowingly restraining the liberty of the poster. So in my opinion a person doesn't' have a privilege to block your vehicle in so they can strike up a conversation with you. Neither did the police officers have the privilege to restraint the poster unless they had probable cause that a crime had been committed, or was about to be committed prior to detaining him. If you going to give your advice to somebody then at least give it in context of the question being asked. ๐Ÿ˜ And yes there are laws which prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process.
  7. -1 points
    VeraCaUSA

    Traffic stop

    Solicitation according to Black's Law dictionary is the asking; enticing; urgent request.. If it is your opinion that a person can walk up and ask someone to have sex for money is legal then of course you are right. But if you can't then you are wrong. You can twist it any way you want but you asked for a example where a person couldn't walk up and start a conversation and I gave you one.
  8. -1 points
    VeraCaUSA

    Traffic stop

    A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following: (1) Compel another to engage in sexual activity for hire; (2) Induce, procure, encourage, solicit, request, or otherwise facilitate either of the following: a) A minor to engage in sexual activity for hire, whether or not the offender knows the age of the minor; (b) A person the offender believes to be a minor to engage in sexual activity for hire, whether or not the person is a minor. Black's law dictionary defines solicit as: 1. To seek or to plead, to entreat and ask. 2. To lure or tempt a person.
  9. -2 points
    VeraCaUSA

    Traffic stop

    Please cite such a law. If you are unable to cite such a law, on what basis do you make this claim? Let's start with solicitation of prostitution for one, (Ohio Rev. Code ยง 2907.21). While the communication to compel might not have to be verbal, it still would not give a person a right to walk up to someone and bring up that conversation subject. So yes, a person, even a police officer does not have a right to simply walk up to someone and start any conversation they want therefore in conclusion, the subject matter of the conversation does matter.
×
×
  • Create New...