Page 8 - Tax Task News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

To answer the question and they continually ask this question. Is this really 100 per day per person. In fact it is actually per person that is affected. Its not an import employee. So if that employee has children, their assumption is also 36,500 per char old grandchild as well. No one will give them an answer from the irs on what that penalty is and how it stacks up. All the big it is a stall from that and we have to get clarification because there are businesses that are out there that do have a problem whether for religious reasons were other reasons. If they miss one, that is a pretty big...

Were talking about. Okay. Anyway, it could possibly go there. Somewhere in that range. I think on the chapter 2 question, i would probably not change the burden. I think the standard of proof and burden to be kind of makes sense. That is what the whole basis of the chapter 2 versus 3 thing was. I think i would be better with three positive votes needed to make a finding that there was a violation. So even if it requires three votes to find a violation, you can still hold the person to the burden, if they didnt meet their burden, then you go the other way. Although it does play out in the same ...

Thanks. Respectfully i disagreeing with member pillpa with respect to burden of proof, with respect to chapter 2. The fact that the matter has been referred from the task force means that the task force has found a violation. Perhaps a willful one. And i think that the burden of proof should definitely rest with the resplendent in that case. As a matter of fact, i think that if you recall, when the task force refers were not looking for readjudication. Again, we have five new members and its possible that consensus would change. But when this matter has come before you, before us, with the tas...

Different powers and duties and i wouldnt want to complete those. I think i have said enough for the moment. Thanks. Respectfully i disagreeing with member pillpa with respect to burden of proof, with respect to chapter 2. The fact that the matter has been referred from the task force means that the task force has found a violation. Perhaps a willful one. And i think that the burden of proof should definitely rest with the resplendent in that case. As a matter of fact, i think that if you recall, when the task force refers were not looking for readjudication. Again, we have five new members an...

There was a suggestion at one point to substitute the finding of task force for the commission in the event that the commission doesnt overturn the tank ask force. I think the task force and the commission stand separately and i would not subject that you take the Task Force Recommendation on its own. You can choose to, but i dont think there should be a regthat provides in the absence of a Commission Decision to the contrary. I think there are really different powers and duties and i wouldnt want to complete those. I think i have said enough for the moment. Thanks. Respectfully i disagreeing ...