Rebate

[opie]

I interpreted irs.gov comments to indicate that persons who are not normally required to
file and did not file a 2007 return may file a 2008 tax return during this coming filing season to
obtain the recovery credit and refund. IRS.gov says in part...."by filing an income tax return
when the filing season opens in January...." NOT just during January, but during the
entire filing season.

Dyne,

Could you please cite your reference saying that you can only get this credit if the return is filed during the filing season. As I posted earlier, I believe the normal statute of limitations for claiming a refund apply and am looking for anything that might indicate that this is not true.

[dyne]

Opie, I agree with you completely. I understood irs.gov to say that such a person could
file a tax return during the upcoming filing season but I believe that they can file anytime
during the statute of limitations period.

[opie]

Opie, I agree with you completely. I understood irs.gov to say that such a person could
file a tax return during the upcoming filing season but I believe that they can file anytime
during the statute of limitations period.

Dyne,

Thanks.

Since you now seem to be describing it the way everyone else is, I am assuming you no longer are thinking that the IRS is really talking about another separate PAYMENT (their word not yours) if a taxpayer files early enough. Is that correct?

I have been searching and found nothing to corroborate what the IRS site describes as a PAYMENT (although refundable credits are applied like income tax payments on the tax return). After October 15, all we are only left with is the Stimulus Credit. The Stimulus Payment (for 2008 at least) is gone.

[dyne]

Opie:

I never thought that it would be a second rebate. Apparently I did not explain properly
what I was trying to say. It is to be a FIRST rebate or refund for those persons who
failed to file a 2007 tax return to get the rebate and who file a 2008 tax return who qualify
for the recovery rebate as their income is at least $3,000 or more but otherwise they
are not required to file, etc. This seems simple, but is difficult to explain.

[opie]

Opie:

I never thought that it would be a second rebate. Apparently I did not explain properly
what I was trying to say. It is to be a FIRST rebate or refund for those persons who
failed to file a 2007 tax return to get the rebate and who file a 2008 tax return who qualify
for the recovery rebate as their income is at least $3,000 or more but otherwise they
are not required to file, etc. This seems simple, but is difficult to explain.

Dyne,

Thanks for clarifying. When you told me

I am ONLY concerned with whether or not these people who did not file a 2007 tax return should soon file a 2008 tax return. IRS.gov/com clearly says:"you can receive a PAYMENT in 2009 by filing an income tax return when the filing season opens in January".

and that the other 6 websites agreed with you that there was another payment and that the tax returns had to be filed "soon," I guess I also got confused.

From this series of discussions, I assume you realize that not everyone with $3,000 in income is entitled to the rebate despite what you posted. That income has to be earned income, social security income or nontaxable veterans’ disability or death benefits. Someone living on only a pension (or interest or dividends or capital gains) would not qualify at $3,000, but would need more income to qualify.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell what you are saying when you use imprecise terms like "income" when that is technically wrong. Others reading your post may assume that you are accurately stating the rules and be misled. Many of us use this board for clarification of issues. When terms are used indicriminately, it clouds the issues and confuses people. Just because you know exactly what you mean, you should not assume that everyone else can read your mind. We can only read what you actually post.

I assume you are a tax professional since you subscribe to TTB, so you must realize that when you use inaccurate terms, people can be misled to think you don't fully understand rules and need further clarification.

[tpert]

Opie,

Give up....this is not real.

[opie]

Give up....this is not real.

Tpert,

You know, I was beginning to think that Alan Funt was hiding around here somewhere. I kept rechecking posts to make sure I was not imagining things or making them up.

I had to admit I was startled to see someone citing TaxBrain and TurboTax on a professional site.

Apparently it was just a test. Cute.

Not sure if I passed or not.

[dyne]

My ONLY purpose for my comments was to ensure that all tax preparers had read the
Oct 28, 2008 message on irs.gov. Several preparers I have talked to lately were NOT
aware of this post on the irs.gov site. I was not trying to add anything to the irs post.
I quoted the irs.gov site verbatum several times. irs.gov said:" If you missed the Oct 15
deadline for filing an income tax return for an economic stimulus payment, don't
worry. You can receive a payment in 2009 by filing an income tax return when the
filing season opens in January. The IRS will have more information shortly." Notice
IRS uses the term PAYMENT. THAT is what IRS said. I am amazed at the misunderstanding
and misinterpretations of my comments. Perhaps I should have instead said:
See irs.gov for news about the economic stimulus payment. I wish I had not posted anything!

[Black Bart]

opie & tpert

Look, folks; we're trying to run a civil forum here and one of the first rules of civility is -- don't insult your fellow posters.

Now, you may feel the other guy's view is 100% baloney and it's okay to say you disagree, but speculating about his/her motives or intelligence is something else. While dyne doesn't post as often as what it looks like you two will, he's been around a long time, has made some good contributions to the board, and deserves our respect as well as common courtesy.

While it's true that some tax websites are occasionally unreliable, the "chilling effect" of ridicule is an undesirable result -- we're not yet quite so high-toned that lesser mortals (or websites) can't be mentioned here among this "elite" gathering.

The dispute did seem to be about wording, but terminology and time frame aside, he seemed only to be asking if people who missed out this year could get some money next time. The semantics may have been imprecise, but we don't know how others hear us (witness my failure to get a question over to Don) and often we simply have to read between the lines. I think many people here understood what he was getting at.

While you took a couple of pretty good shots at him ("...ridiculous discussion..."/"...sorry I wasted my time..."), he later still said "...I agree with you completely..." To follow that olive branch with "..this is not real..." (I assume you're saying dyne's posts are a hoax) and "...Apparently it was just a test.." (I don't think either of you really believe that) after he'd thrown in the towel was ungracious to say the least and certainly not worthy of a tax professional.

Just judging from your posts, you both seem like very smart people and it looks like there's another tough tax season ahead -- we need you (and dyne). Lighten up and we can all be friends. Okay?

[tpert]

Look, folks; we're trying to run a civil forum here and one of the first rules of civility is -- don't insult your fellow posters.

Lighten up and we can all be friends. Okay?

Black Bart,

My comments were not intended as an insult, but to stop the insanity. This was going nowhere. In the comment he made that you described as an "olive branch" or "throwing in the towel" it looked to me like he was "baiting" opie again and opie was taking the bait. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt assuming he was not misconstruing the rules, but that he understood them and was just having fun with us. Opie seemed to be seriously trying to strive for accuracy.

We have been going in circles for days with questions about whether seniors need to file soon and whether it was a payment or a credit and whether it was refundable or not and whether it was two payments or two rebates or one. There were some comments he made which misrepresented statements made on another forum site, insulting the posters who did not come here to defend themselves and who had only been trying to help him understand that this is not limited to seniors and that eligibility or lack thereof in 2007 was immaterial to eligibility in 2008 and that now only the 2008 eligibility mattered.

If you relook at my posts, you will see that my use of the term "ridiculous discussion" was not directed at Dyne's comments but were characterizing his misquote of what other posters said on another site. He said that posters on the other site had told him that there was no refundable credit or that seniors are not eligible for the credit if they did not file a 2007 return by October 15. Having been on that other site, I can say that no one there ever made the comments he accused them of making. I did not see anyone here make them either.

I agree that I have also learned things from many of Dyne's posts....so I am in agreement with you that this is out of character for his posts.

Assuming you are correct and that he really was trying to understand or explain this, then my comments about this not being "real" were totally inappropriate and I apologize to all on this board for my unprofessional behavior, especially to Dyne.

I apologize, Dyne.

[opie]

Look, folks; we're trying to run a civil forum here and one of the first rules of civility is -- don't insult your fellow posters.

Now, you may feel the other guy's view is 100% baloney and it's okay to say you disagree, but speculating about his/her motives or intelligence is something else. While dyne doesn't post as often as what it looks like you two will, he's been around a long time, has made some good contributions to the board, and deserves our respect as well as common courtesy.

While it's true that some tax websites are occasionally unreliable, the "chilling effect" of ridicule is an undesirable result -- we're not yet quite so high-toned that lesser mortals (or websites) can't be mentioned here among this "elite" gathering.

The dispute did seem to be about wording, but terminology and time frame aside, he seemed only to be asking if people who missed out this year could get some money next time. The semantics may have been imprecise, but we don't know how others hear us (witness my failure to get a question over to Don) and often we simply have to read between the lines. I think many people here understood what he was getting at.

While you took a couple of pretty good shots at him ("...ridiculous discussion..."/"...sorry I wasted my time..."), he later still said "...I agree with you completely..." To follow that olive branch with "..this is not real..." (I assume you're saying dyne's posts are a hoax) and "...Apparently it was just a test.." (I don't think either of you really believe that) after he'd thrown in the towel was ungracious to say the least and certainly not worthy of a tax professional.

Just judging from your posts, you both seem like very smart people and it looks like there's another tough tax season ahead -- we need you (and dyne). Lighten up and we can all be friends. Okay?

Black Bart,

I am hopefully taking your comments in the spirit that you intend them and I apologize that I offended you and Dyne with my comments about this being a test. I was expressing remorse at being "taken in" not ridicule in those comments and I was trying to remain positive. I am relatively new here and was trying to help someone with what little knowledge I myself have. I don't have the history of this board that you do, so I have no preconceived notions about Dyne's motives.

Let me make it clear though, I did not think he was wrong or full of baloney and I never questioned his intelligence and I would not characterize this discussion as a "dispute" as you do. I think that misrepresentation of my comments and this discussion can be as damaging as what you have accused me of doing.

I was honestly trying to help Dyne crystalize the key points about the rebate that it looked like he was missing. If you read through my posts, you will see that I went to each website that he said supported his statements about there being another "payment" if seniors file "soon." I did not go to those websites out of disrespect, but out of respect for the opinion of another forum member. When I came back and said that I did not find out anything, there that supported payments and an early filing requirement except two sites, he informed me that he never said those things (which are quite clearly stated in several of his posts). In my humble opinion, I was the one taken for a ride in that situation, not Dyne.

Then after he indicated that he has understood this all along and that he was bringing information not asking for help, I said that I was sorry I wasted my time trying to help. This was not a "shot" at Dyne as you characterize it but a pure statement of fact about me. Wouldn't you be sorry that you spent a couple of hours searching through and reading through websites trying to help someone upon finding out that they never wanted or needed your help?

In retrospect, though, I pretty much agree with you that it looks like Dyne was only trying to inform the misinformed that we still need to be aware of the Stimulus rules.

I will bow to your greater knowledge of this forum and Dyne's past contribution. Please understand that I had no intention of insulting him and if you believe he was not just egging me on, I will accept your opinion.

I am not sure whether I feel worse now being accused by you of insulting someone who I was sincerely trying to help or how I felt last night when I thought I had been thoroughly taken for an idiot by someone in my first set of forum posts. I think it will be a while before I post again. This has not been a pleasant experience.

[Black Bart]

dyne / tpert/ opie

Well, shoot; now I've insulted everybody myself (the exact opposite of what I set out to do). Thank you both for your deference to my "veteran" status, but for the record I'm not a moderator or anything more "official" than you are; rather just an old poster with an interest in good boardsmanship. Anyway, feel free to fire right back as equals when unjustly accused.

Dyne:
I know you're upset too, but how about saying a few words to the boys and assuring them you weren't trying to trick 'em or fool 'em or mess with 'em? They thought you were after them.

Tpert:
It just goes to show you never can tell how comments will be taken -- I was completely surprised that you thought he might be baiting opie or having fun with you (I'm sure he wasn't and hopefully he'll tell you). / You're correct about my misuse of "ridiculous discussion;" you were not referencing dyne's comments. However, and maybe it's just me (I don't mean that cynically); when such characterizations are made of items a poster has introduced, then it just seems that by association he is implicitly being characterized in the same terms. / That was a good apology and my "not worthy" barb to both of you was overstated and more than a bit much (I'm staying with "ungracious" though). Looking around the Internet today, your "not real" is definitely mild. / Anyway, now I'll apologize to you for offense I've given and hope you'll stay with us (you post good stuff).

Opie:
Giving credit where credit's due, yes, new or not, you have tried to help people here. As to your knowledge (see tpert's comment: "Opie seemed to be seriously trying to strive for accuracy"); from looking at your posts on this thread alone, there can be no doubt of that -- I was much impressed by the depth of your research. / While I don't think dyne meant to "take you for a ride", certainly I can understand your frustration about wasting time on unwanted help (I don't know his original intent on that). / I believe there were misperceptions all around: It seemed to me (and maybe to him) that your instructions to him about imprecise and inaccurate terms was like being "taken to the principal's office" (maybe you should "Smile when you say that, partner"). He seemed to be trying to end the discussion, but you kept coming back with more facts -- to prove him wrong I thought, but now I realize you were just presenting new relevant data to further the discussion and felt you were being taken advantage of rather than the other way around. / So, I misjudged your intentions and for that I apologize to you. I'm pretty sure dyne will swear and declare he wasn't "egging you on" and your research time certainly wasn't wasted 'cause we all learned things we didn't know before, so thanks for that (also I appreciate your clearing up my "income" question back there). Please reconsider leaving -- after that illuminating "first set of forum posts," there's a zero chance of your being "taken for an idiot." I know hurt feelin's are hard to get over, but look at the upside -- one of these days I'll do somethin' stupid and you can give me a cussin'.

Sincerely, BB

[tpert]

Black Bart,

I don't think there is any need for an apology. I appreciated your comments and the chance to clarify your perception of what I was saying. Posts are hard to read as the poster intended them and are easily misinterpreted. This is not the first time I have made a post that was not clear and it will not be the last. Hopefully I will learn from my mistakes, but there is no guarantee there either. I meant no offense to you or anyone else on this forum and I hold no grudge against anyone. Your comments offer an insight into how my statements were perceived, that I could not achieve on my own, so I welcome your comments so that I can try to avoid such trespasses in the future.

I did use overly strong words when describing that quote. I probably should have just shut up. It was an emotional response and those are never professional. Even though Dyne did not give the name of the poster he was supposedly quoting, I had just come here from the other site and knew who it was. While I was appalled that the poster's comments were so badly distorted, the poster himself did not comment here, so I probably should not have said anything either. As I indicated, I ultimately concluded that this was all probably a harmless attempt to just keep this discussion going and not done out of malice, so I have rethunk my initial reaction to that post and no longer think the misrepresentation of the comments were intended to insult anyone.

Thank you for your honesty and your willingness to listen.

[dyne]

Thanks and Best wishes to Black Bart, opie and tpert. No, I was not trying to trick anyone.
My comments were only directed to those few, if any, tax preparers who had not yet seen the irs.gov/.com comment dated Oct 28, 2008, which I have quoted several times.
I hope we may all be friends. May God bless and keep you!