(02-26-2016 10:44 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Let me explain this again. YOU DO NOT KNOW THESE FACTS FOR WHICH YOU ARE ASSUMING! These are private matters and Al has not released the exact details of them. You're basing your comments on reports in the newspaper from questionable sources.

Let me explain this again. FACT: AL DIDN'T PAY HIS TAXES. For whatever reasons, Al decided he did not have to pay an amount of money in taxes and it turns out that he did. Therefore, he didn't pay his fair share. And, if he is on a payment plan, we are still waiting for him to pay his fair share. You really don't need any more facts than that.

But the reasons DO matter. It's not always a case where the taxpayer was purposely avoiding taxes. Accountants sometimes make mistakes and do things wrong and you end up owing money.

Again, we don't know the particular facts, so to assume otherwise is reckless.

(02-26-2016 10:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The companies being administratively dissolved are well known cases and public.

Sure...but were their particular tax situations made public?

(02-26-2016 11:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The companies being administratively dissolved are well known cases and public.

Sure...but are were there particular tax situations made public?

The State of New York released a bunch of information on companies of his they dissolved for non-payment.

I think a lot of that broke in 2012 or 2013.

Those are completely public. I would imagine if you wanted to go digging you could find more than you would care to ever read on that.

He's had many companies dissolved that way.

(02-26-2016 11:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:44 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Let me explain this again. YOU DO NOT KNOW THESE FACTS FOR WHICH YOU ARE ASSUMING! These are private matters and Al has not released the exact details of them. You're basing your comments on reports in the newspaper from questionable sources.

Let me explain this again. FACT: AL DIDN'T PAY HIS TAXES. For whatever reasons, Al decided he did not have to pay an amount of money in taxes and it turns out that he did. Therefore, he didn't pay his fair share. And, if he is on a payment plan, we are still waiting for him to pay his fair share. You really don't need any more facts than that.

But the reasons DO matter. It's not always a case where the taxpayer was purposely avoiding taxes. Accountants sometimes make mistakes and do things wrong and you end up owing money.

Again, we don't know the particular facts, so to assume otherwise is reckless.

He OWED the taxes and DID NOT pay them. He CHOSE NOT to pay. For whatever reason, he was WRONG. He is in DEFAULT and thus have not paid his FAIR SHARE.

(02-26-2016 12:23 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:44 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Let me explain this again. YOU DO NOT KNOW THESE FACTS FOR WHICH YOU ARE ASSUMING! These are private matters and Al has not released the exact details of them. You're basing your comments on reports in the newspaper from questionable sources.

Let me explain this again. FACT: AL DIDN'T PAY HIS TAXES. For whatever reasons, Al decided he did not have to pay an amount of money in taxes and it turns out that he did. Therefore, he didn't pay his fair share. And, if he is on a payment plan, we are still waiting for him to pay his fair share. You really don't need any more facts than that.

But the reasons DO matter. It's not always a case where the taxpayer was purposely avoiding taxes. Accountants sometimes make mistakes and do things wrong and you end up owing money.

Again, we don't know the particular facts, so to assume otherwise is reckless.

He OWED the taxes and DID NOT pay them. He CHOSE NOT to pay. For whatever reason, he was WRONG. He is in DEFAULT and thus have not paid his FAIR SHARE.

Once again, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE SITUATION! Did he file a return with a balance due and just not pay it? You don't know.

Did he file a return with a refund and the IRS then sent a letter detailing an accounting mistake which then put him in a balance due situation which he did not have the money to pay? You don't know.

Bottom line, you don't know what happened! So assuming that he had a balance due and just said "screw you I'm not paying" is reckless. Sorry.

(02-26-2016 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 12:23 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:44 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Let me explain this again. YOU DO NOT KNOW THESE FACTS FOR WHICH YOU ARE ASSUMING! These are private matters and Al has not released the exact details of them. You're basing your comments on reports in the newspaper from questionable sources.

Let me explain this again. FACT: AL DIDN'T PAY HIS TAXES. For whatever reasons, Al decided he did not have to pay an amount of money in taxes and it turns out that he did. Therefore, he didn't pay his fair share. And, if he is on a payment plan, we are still waiting for him to pay his fair share. You really don't need any more facts than that.

But the reasons DO matter. It's not always a case where the taxpayer was purposely avoiding taxes. Accountants sometimes make mistakes and do things wrong and you end up owing money.

Again, we don't know the particular facts, so to assume otherwise is reckless.

He OWED the taxes and DID NOT pay them. He CHOSE NOT to pay. For whatever reason, he was WRONG. He is in DEFAULT and thus have not paid his FAIR SHARE.

Once again, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE SITUATION! Did he file a return with a balance due and just not pay it? You don't know.

Did he file a return with a refund and the IRS then sent a letter detailing an accounting mistake which then put him in a balance due situation which he did not have the money to pay? You don't know.

Bottom line, you don't know what happened! So assuming that he had a balance due and just said "screw you I'm not paying" is reckless. Sorry.

so you want us to read in context?

(02-26-2016 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 12:23 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:44 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Let me explain this again. YOU DO NOT KNOW THESE FACTS FOR WHICH YOU ARE ASSUMING! These are private matters and Al has not released the exact details of them. You're basing your comments on reports in the newspaper from questionable sources.

Let me explain this again. FACT: AL DIDN'T PAY HIS TAXES. For whatever reasons, Al decided he did not have to pay an amount of money in taxes and it turns out that he did. Therefore, he didn't pay his fair share. And, if he is on a payment plan, we are still waiting for him to pay his fair share. You really don't need any more facts than that.

But the reasons DO matter. It's not always a case where the taxpayer was purposely avoiding taxes. Accountants sometimes make mistakes and do things wrong and you end up owing money.

Again, we don't know the particular facts, so to assume otherwise is reckless.

He OWED the taxes and DID NOT pay them. He CHOSE NOT to pay. For whatever reason, he was WRONG. He is in DEFAULT and thus have not paid his FAIR SHARE.

Once again, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE SITUATION! Did he file a return with a balance due and just not pay it? You don't know.

Did he file a return with a refund and the IRS then sent a letter detailing an accounting mistake which then put him in a balance due situation which he did not have the money to pay? You don't know.

Bottom line, you don't know what happened! So assuming that he had a balance due and just said "screw you I'm not paying" is reckless. Sorry.

Tawanna Brawley

(02-26-2016 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 12:23 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 11:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:44 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Let me explain this again. YOU DO NOT KNOW THESE FACTS FOR WHICH YOU ARE ASSUMING! These are private matters and Al has not released the exact details of them. You're basing your comments on reports in the newspaper from questionable sources.

Let me explain this again. FACT: AL DIDN'T PAY HIS TAXES. For whatever reasons, Al decided he did not have to pay an amount of money in taxes and it turns out that he did. Therefore, he didn't pay his fair share. And, if he is on a payment plan, we are still waiting for him to pay his fair share. You really don't need any more facts than that.

But the reasons DO matter. It's not always a case where the taxpayer was purposely avoiding taxes. Accountants sometimes make mistakes and do things wrong and you end up owing money.

Again, we don't know the particular facts, so to assume otherwise is reckless.

He OWED the taxes and DID NOT pay them. He CHOSE NOT to pay. For whatever reason, he was WRONG. He is in DEFAULT and thus have not paid his FAIR SHARE.

Once again, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE SITUATION! Did he file a return with a balance due and just not pay it? You don't know.

Did he file a return with a refund and the IRS then sent a letter detailing an accounting mistake which then put him in a balance due situation which he did not have the money to pay? You don't know.

Bottom line, you don't know what happened! So assuming that he had a balance due and just said "screw you I'm not paying" is reckless. Sorry.

Trump's second major endorsement of the day. First Christie and now this.

Hunh. Another scratch mark as to why to consider Trump...

Get rid of this fat sack of schit.

(02-26-2016 01:28 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Hunh. Another scratch mark as to why to consider Trump...

Get rid of this fat sack of schit.

Bye Felicia!

Pretty sure someone would pay for his plane ticket.

Make sure he pays his taxes before we let him leave.

adios on the amighost,......

fk that pos tub-0-goo

Makes me look at Trump in a whole new light.

I would vote for Trump if Sharpton was actually serious.

(02-26-2016 03:03 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I would vote for Trump if Sharpton was actually serious.

A new definition for "Single-Issue Voter"

(02-26-2016 03:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:03 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I would vote for Trump if Sharpton was actually serious.

A new definition for "Single-Issue Voter"

It was a gag. Apparently, my humor is too complex for you.

Please, I'm a Carson supporter.

finally found a reason to vote for trump. we will have a few sharpton-free months before the thermonuclear war breaks out and obliterates us all.

so, when I am vaporized, I will be slightly less annoyed when it occurs . . . and that's something.