- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Jindal rejects fat tax credits for cars
Posted on 6/15/12 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 6/15/12 at 1:47 pm
3
Posted on 6/15/12 at 1:51 pm to 81Tiger
Can I get a background story? Did people plan on getting that credit?
Posted on 6/15/12 at 1:55 pm to wegotdatwood
quote:Hell yes.
Did people plan on getting that credit?
Posted on 6/15/12 at 1:58 pm to 81Tiger
Sone very pissed off people at my firm today 
Posted on 6/15/12 at 2:26 pm to 81Tiger
It is completely insane how many bizarrely specific tax "credits" are provided for in the LA Rev Code. Rather than across the board tax decreases we get this sweetheart treatment for every special interest group under the sun. That damn code is like the sandwich I had for lunch - swiss cheese, and full of pork.
Posted on 6/15/12 at 3:58 pm to 81Tiger
quote:
"It could wreck us," said House Appropriations Chairman Jim Fannin, D-Jonesboro. "I just found out about it before the (Legislative) session ended (June 4).".....Fannin said his certified public accountant alerted him and he filed for two credits on vehicles he bought in 2010.
Posted on 6/15/12 at 4:03 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
"It could wreck us," said House Appropriations Chairman Jim Fannin, D-Jonesboro... and he filed for two credits on vehicles he bought in 2010.
Are you suprised at him speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time?
Posted on 6/15/12 at 5:50 pm to 81Tiger
Looks like its just being stopped according to the article. If you got your money, you will probably be ok.
Posted on 6/16/12 at 10:50 am to tigeryat
This article doesn't seem to know what's going on. It makes it seem as though the revenue departments declaration expanded the law, when in fact all it did was clarify what the law clearly (although possibly mistakenly) said. That said, I don't see how a mean letter from jindall can overturn a state law written by legislatures. But ten again, that's coming from someone that definently wants the credit upheld (me).
Posted on 6/16/12 at 11:56 am to jammintiger
I stated early on that "it was too good to be true". This is a mess for all those that received the credit already and those that prepared the returns for the credit. I still believe that if those that got the credit and paid for it according to the ruling made by the Department of Revenue are not allowed to keep the refund there will be a class action suit against the state and Jindal. This has been the biggest screw up in tax preparation that I have seen in 20 years.
What does the Duckslayer22 say about this? Is he ready to re-submit the refund?
What does the Duckslayer22 say about this? Is he ready to re-submit the refund?
Posted on 6/16/12 at 12:54 pm to tigeryat
Sorry delayed double post...
This post was edited on 6/16/12 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 6/17/12 at 12:59 pm to jammintiger
Pecanman,
"I stated early on that "it was too good to be true". This is a mess for all those that received the credit already and those that prepared the returns for the credit. I still believe that if those that got the credit and paid for it according to the ruling made by the Department of Revenue are not allowed to keep the refund there will be a class action suit against the state and Jindal. This has been the biggest screw up in tax preparation that I have seen in 20 years."
I agree whole heartedly! However, it appears the resignation of the Secretary is in order as evidently it was the Department's Policy to rely on the interpretation of just one (1) attorney..the head of the Policy Division. In the law itself, the DOR was to have consulted with the Department of Natural Resources in promulgating the rules and regs for the bill. I have reason to know that didn't happen.
When a credit that could cost the state millions of dollars (rather than the estimated $900,000) is in question, more legal work has to be done before one person issues what the Department thought was the final ruling. And, it was done in a hurry also rather than simply stating the matter had to be further researched before any more credits were to be issued. It's the Secretary's responsibility to have been throughly informed about this bill before rubber stamping anything.
Inasfar as the State not recalling the refunds issued already will more than likely have to go to court as the State cannot give away public funds.
For those that think this bill was rewritten to to expand it and allow E85 vehicles, that's not the case at all. The primary author of the bill told that to the DOR.
And you are right, Pecanman, this has been the biggest screw-up in many, many years.
IMHO, I believe the Governor was correct in stopping the refunds especially as I truly feel the issue needs more legal research before allowing the credit to make certain the credit is legit. And rest assured, I'm sure if the credits are legit, taxpayers will be paid interest in addition to their refunds.
There's always something good to come out of something bad: This matter will be settled one way or the other, and if it is found the present bill does allow E85 vehicles to qualify then when refunds are issued, taxpayers will know they won't have to repay them.
"I stated early on that "it was too good to be true". This is a mess for all those that received the credit already and those that prepared the returns for the credit. I still believe that if those that got the credit and paid for it according to the ruling made by the Department of Revenue are not allowed to keep the refund there will be a class action suit against the state and Jindal. This has been the biggest screw up in tax preparation that I have seen in 20 years."
I agree whole heartedly! However, it appears the resignation of the Secretary is in order as evidently it was the Department's Policy to rely on the interpretation of just one (1) attorney..the head of the Policy Division. In the law itself, the DOR was to have consulted with the Department of Natural Resources in promulgating the rules and regs for the bill. I have reason to know that didn't happen.
When a credit that could cost the state millions of dollars (rather than the estimated $900,000) is in question, more legal work has to be done before one person issues what the Department thought was the final ruling. And, it was done in a hurry also rather than simply stating the matter had to be further researched before any more credits were to be issued. It's the Secretary's responsibility to have been throughly informed about this bill before rubber stamping anything.
Inasfar as the State not recalling the refunds issued already will more than likely have to go to court as the State cannot give away public funds.
For those that think this bill was rewritten to to expand it and allow E85 vehicles, that's not the case at all. The primary author of the bill told that to the DOR.
And you are right, Pecanman, this has been the biggest screw-up in many, many years.
IMHO, I believe the Governor was correct in stopping the refunds especially as I truly feel the issue needs more legal research before allowing the credit to make certain the credit is legit. And rest assured, I'm sure if the credits are legit, taxpayers will be paid interest in addition to their refunds.
There's always something good to come out of something bad: This matter will be settled one way or the other, and if it is found the present bill does allow E85 vehicles to qualify then when refunds are issued, taxpayers will know they won't have to repay them.
Posted on 6/17/12 at 8:08 pm to frb1951
frb1951, What is your opinion concerning tax preparers relying on the DOR's emergency ruling to prepare amended or orginal returns for the client in good faith to receive the credit and charging for this service? Everyone likes to cast blame to others and this may have a negative consequence for the preparer in the eyes of the client.
Posted on 6/17/12 at 11:20 pm to PECANMAN
Pecanman,
frb1951, What is your opinion concerning tax preparers relying on the DOR's emergency ruling to prepare amended or orginal returns for the client in good faith to receive the credit and charging for this service? Everyone likes to cast blame to others and this may have a negative consequence for the preparer in the eyes of the client.
That's going to be a tough call whether or not a preparer needs to refund the fees charged. The circumstances of filing the returns will have to be reviewed closely.
In my particular case, I refused to file any returns until I received concrete proof...or what I would have considered concrete proof at the time and that was a letter from the Policy Division's Adminstrator who is the one that wrote the Emergency Declaration and also the FAQ sheet that was issued recently. I found the Emergency Declaration to be contradictory within the document itself and that led me to question even further the meaning of the Declaration.
The Administrator of the Policy Division called me to discuss the Emergency Declaration and told me within a couple of weeks, she would issue a fact sheet of questions and answers to my (our) concerns.
Low and behold, the next morning, the FAQ sheet was posted on their website. I really feel she was trying to do the right thing, although that seem to cloud her judgment when she hastily issued the FAQ sheet evidently after we ended our conversation.
Again, as the FAQ sheet's disclaimer was something to the effect that the above is not binding to the Department of Revenue and not considered law, I needed more written proof that my clients would be able to keep their refunds before I filed the returns as I had researched and discovered that the interpretation of the credit could cost the state millions of dollars that it doesn't have.
I had clients calling and wanting to file for the credit, however, after informing each one of the things that had taken place thus far, and the fact that I couldn't guarantee they could keep their refunds until I received confirmation that the credits were legit, each one of my clients decided to wait until such time as I could tell them their refunds would not have to be repaid.
Although I didn't have any of my clients insist on my filing for the credit before I had confirmation that the credit would not have to be repaid, if a client had insisted, I would have warned the client he/she might have to repay the refund. Had that been the case, I would consider my fee to be non-refundable.
I have spent more non-billable hours on this "mess" than any other tax situation, but I still consider myself way ahead physically and emotionally. That means far more to me at the moment than way ahead financially!
I think I remember you stating that you were telling your clients that their refunds might have to be repaid. If that's the case and your clients wanted to file for the credit regardless, my opinion on that situation is your fee should be non-refundable.
Also, I'm probably not the right one to ask for my opinion as my research had led me to discovering issues regarding the credit that wasn't public knowledge which kept me from filing the amendments.
Another reason why I'm not the right one to ask is that I am a capricorn, unfortunately, which constantly drives me crazy as capricorns are very detail oriented, thus having to know every detail in relation to this credit by nature is very different than a normal person who pulls up info on a State website and puts their faith on what is stated in black and white. With strictly that angle in mind, I probably would tell the client I followed the State's instructions when filing for the credit, thus I feel my fee is non-refundable.
Take care,
Cathy
frb1951, What is your opinion concerning tax preparers relying on the DOR's emergency ruling to prepare amended or orginal returns for the client in good faith to receive the credit and charging for this service? Everyone likes to cast blame to others and this may have a negative consequence for the preparer in the eyes of the client.
That's going to be a tough call whether or not a preparer needs to refund the fees charged. The circumstances of filing the returns will have to be reviewed closely.
In my particular case, I refused to file any returns until I received concrete proof...or what I would have considered concrete proof at the time and that was a letter from the Policy Division's Adminstrator who is the one that wrote the Emergency Declaration and also the FAQ sheet that was issued recently. I found the Emergency Declaration to be contradictory within the document itself and that led me to question even further the meaning of the Declaration.
The Administrator of the Policy Division called me to discuss the Emergency Declaration and told me within a couple of weeks, she would issue a fact sheet of questions and answers to my (our) concerns.
Low and behold, the next morning, the FAQ sheet was posted on their website. I really feel she was trying to do the right thing, although that seem to cloud her judgment when she hastily issued the FAQ sheet evidently after we ended our conversation.
Again, as the FAQ sheet's disclaimer was something to the effect that the above is not binding to the Department of Revenue and not considered law, I needed more written proof that my clients would be able to keep their refunds before I filed the returns as I had researched and discovered that the interpretation of the credit could cost the state millions of dollars that it doesn't have.
I had clients calling and wanting to file for the credit, however, after informing each one of the things that had taken place thus far, and the fact that I couldn't guarantee they could keep their refunds until I received confirmation that the credits were legit, each one of my clients decided to wait until such time as I could tell them their refunds would not have to be repaid.
Although I didn't have any of my clients insist on my filing for the credit before I had confirmation that the credit would not have to be repaid, if a client had insisted, I would have warned the client he/she might have to repay the refund. Had that been the case, I would consider my fee to be non-refundable.
I have spent more non-billable hours on this "mess" than any other tax situation, but I still consider myself way ahead physically and emotionally. That means far more to me at the moment than way ahead financially!
I think I remember you stating that you were telling your clients that their refunds might have to be repaid. If that's the case and your clients wanted to file for the credit regardless, my opinion on that situation is your fee should be non-refundable.
Also, I'm probably not the right one to ask for my opinion as my research had led me to discovering issues regarding the credit that wasn't public knowledge which kept me from filing the amendments.
Another reason why I'm not the right one to ask is that I am a capricorn, unfortunately, which constantly drives me crazy as capricorns are very detail oriented, thus having to know every detail in relation to this credit by nature is very different than a normal person who pulls up info on a State website and puts their faith on what is stated in black and white. With strictly that angle in mind, I probably would tell the client I followed the State's instructions when filing for the credit, thus I feel my fee is non-refundable.
Take care,
Cathy
Posted on 6/18/12 at 8:09 am to frb1951
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/18/12 at 8:12 am
Posted on 6/18/12 at 8:09 am to frb1951
frb1951,
Thanks for your detailed response. All my clients knew of the controversy but the Emergency ruling by the state solidified the legitamacy. If those that have filed in the last few weeks don't get their refund when those before did get a refund based upon the DOR's ruling, there will be legal consequences. And then you have the problem with many of those who have gotten the refund will not be able to afford to pay it back! Just a mess all around.
The news was unclear whether this was a temporary suspension of the credit by Jindal or a permanent one regarding E85's.
So, you never did file one amended return for not one client?
Thanks for your detailed response. All my clients knew of the controversy but the Emergency ruling by the state solidified the legitamacy. If those that have filed in the last few weeks don't get their refund when those before did get a refund based upon the DOR's ruling, there will be legal consequences. And then you have the problem with many of those who have gotten the refund will not be able to afford to pay it back! Just a mess all around.
The news was unclear whether this was a temporary suspension of the credit by Jindal or a permanent one regarding E85's.
So, you never did file one amended return for not one client?
This post was edited on 6/18/12 at 8:11 am
Posted on 6/18/12 at 8:48 am to tigeryat
quote:I heard it was, she wasn't happy with the way Jindal handled it or something
I wonder if the has anything to do with the flex fuel credit clusterfu#k?
could be wrong, just what I heard
Posted on 6/18/12 at 9:01 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
frb1951, What is your opinion concerning tax preparers relying on the DOR's emergency ruling to prepare amended or orginal returns for the client in good faith to receive the credit and charging for this service? Everyone likes to cast blame to others and this may have a negative consequence for the preparer in the eyes of the client.
We sent out a memo to all clients stating what was going on and that they might qualify. We instructed them to do the research on their car to see if it qualifies and to get the required documentation. The memo also stated that this was a hightl debated issue and that even if we amend there return there would be a chance that the credit will be denied or the LDR could even ask for the money back.
We then instructed our clients that if the wished to proceed and file for the credit refund we would do it for them and would charge them X amount regardless of the outcome.
I feel that we covered our bases with our clients, and so far we have had no complaints. I even called some clients on Friday after the JIndal news on Thrusday night and asked how they wanted us to proceed ( had not amended their returns yet). Told them since we had not done anything yet and no charges have been incurred. About half said to put on hold, the other half so go ahead and file.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News