Home » 2008 (Page 3)

Yearly Archives: 2008

Bail-Out Duh Factor

By Stacie Clifford Kitts, CPA

With the constant chatter about the big three auto makers financial bail-out , I find myself getting more ticked off with each whiny – save me from my excess – sorry I ran the company into the ground –palm up hand out – shoved in the face of the American public – it has me asking – are we living in a Democracy or what? Cause I’m not sure anymore.

Honestly, I’ve been reluctant to write something about this topic simply because I felt that I needed to research the facts in more detail. Like: Who are these company leaders? Where did they come from? What mistakes have they made? How is the economy being affected? What will happen if our lawmakers don’t bail these guys out? What will happen if they do?

But then I thought- what the heck, there is a huge DUH factor here and I don’t need to do a bunch of research to identify it.

Here are some pretty obvious “Duh’s”.

Duh factor 1. If your company is in trouble, do ya think it’s a good idea to carry on the excessive lavishness that you engaged in prior to the trouble?

Hello, private jet for safety purposes. Pul-eez .

Here’s a thought, why not spend some time in a TSA screening line and then decide whether commercial airline flight is safe enough for ya. I’m willing to bet that it is.

Duh factor 2. Nobody, and I mean nobody’s performance is worth a multi-million dollar pay check when their company is asking for government handouts.

And if you are going to make the argument that good performance should be rewarded, then it follows that poor performance should be punished.

After all, if these executives are going to claim the glory when things are going well and demand multi-million dollar salaries, then shouldn’t they also own the blame when things go awry?

Duh factor 3. As a tax payer, it ticks me off that these same exec’s who ran their company’s into the ground will keep their jobs and get to decide what happens to my hard earned tax dollars if this bail-out is approved.

As a mother, I have learned that you don’t reward bad behavior. And why is that? Because rewarding bad behavior and protecting people from their poor choices just perpetuates the behavior.

If we’re going to bail out these companies, then our lawmakers should not allow these same company exec’s who made poor choices in the past the privilege of spending my money.

As a matter of fact, if the big three exec’s had any balls at all, they would admit defeat; give their prior salaries back to the company and just go away.

Duh factor 4. Here’s another thought, why don’t we take that 50 billion dollars – give or take – and spread it among some successful well run businesses.

You know – reward the good behavior and help out some companies that are doing – oh… I don’t know – a good job. Then those healthy companies can grow and create jobs and stimulate the economy instead of maintaining a few sick losers.

Two New Appeals Programs

The following information is published by the Internal Revenue Service:

WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Service today announced a two-year test of two programs: the post-Appeals mediation and arbitration procedures for Offer in Compromise (OIC) and Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP).

Beginning Dec. 1, 2008. for a two-year test period, Appeals will offer post-Appeals mediation and arbitration for OIC and TFRP cases for taxpayers whose appeals are considered at the Appeals office in Atlanta, Ga.; Chicago, Ill.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Houston, Texas; Indianapolis, Ind.; Louisville, Ky.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and San Francisco, Calif.

Under these two alternative dispute resolution programs, the taxpayer or Appeals may request nonbinding mediation. The taxpayer may decline Appeals’ request for mediation. Appeals will evaluate a taxpayer’s request for mediation based on the criteria detailed in Revenue Procedure 2002-44 and Announcement 2008-111. A request for binding arbitration must be made jointly by the taxpayer and Appeals. The mediation and arbitration procedures do not create any additional authority for settlement by Appeals.
During the test period, Appeals employees will advise the taxpayer of the availability of these alternative dispute strategies and the deadline for timely requesting such strategies when a rejection of an OIC is sustained or a proposed TFRP assessment is sustained. An OIC submitted during Collection Due Process (CDP) as an alternative to a Collection action is not eligible for these alternative dispute resolution strategies during the test period.
The Post-Appeals mediation process is available for both legal and factual issues. The mediator’s role is to facilitate settlement negotiations so the parties can reach their own agreement. The mediator does not have settlement authority over any issue.
The Arbitration procedure is available for factual issues only. The arbitrator’s role is to hear both sides of a disputed issue and then render a decision on the specific factual issue being arbitrated. This decision is binding on both parties. However, the arbitrator does not have the authority to decide that the offer in compromise itself must be accepted or that a person is/is not liable for the TFRP under § 6672. Neither party may appeal the decision of the arbitrator or contest the decision in any judicial proceeding.

Complete procedures for initiating a request for post-Appeals mediation or arbitration are in Announcement 2008-111. The agency will seek appropriate Offer in Compromise and Trust Fund Recovery Penalty cases for both post-Appeals mediation and arbitration during the two-year test period in order to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution for these cases.