|
|
nationwide internet service provider, internet service provider nationwideinternet service provider, nationwide, nationwide internet service provider
nationwide internet service provider |
Your
best deal for Internet service!
$1.00 for first 3 Months!
This
deal is also good for our CopperHiSpeed premium service!
* This offer is good for new accounts only. After 3 months your account
will be billed $9.95 a month for our standard monthly plan. There are
no additional fees or contracts required to take advantage of this limited
time offer. Tell
your friends!
|
 |
If you have any questions, please call us at:
| Mention promotional code 1012005 for free support! |
888-336-3318
|
Copper.net is affiliated with these organizations that
assure the highest standards
of security, privacy,
and business practices.
|
|
ISP Information:
Chat shorthand for "rehi", meaning "hello again".
ISP Glossary:
re, re's - Dan Lanciani wrote in messagenews:1331175@news1.IPSWITCHS.CMM... rod_speed@yahoo.com (Rod Speed) writes | > | The payment system is just ONE way of proving for an audit. | > You might want to ask about this in misc.taxes.moderated. | No need. | > The general feeling seems to be that you need to be able to | > prove both that the money moved and what the money was for. | And the receipt or statement from the | operation that received the money qualifys. I don't believe that this is true in general.Corse it does. The problem (from the IRS's perspective) is that people can collect receipts from friends and family after they become aware of the audit.Bullshit. Most obviously when something physicalis donated and there is no check involved at all. As computerized as life has become, it is still not the case that receipts are always bound to the individuals to whom they were issued.More bullshit. There is also the problem of people simply forging receipts.Easy to allow for by checking with the purported receipter. Statements are better because they are typically issued to the person in question and have a name/address/whatever, but I'm still not convinced that a statement by itself is sufficient if the IRS wanted to push the issue.More fool you, most obviously when there is no check involved at all. After all, with no proof that the payment came from the individual named on the statement, the IRS could reasonably argue that someone else in fact made the payment.Just as true when there is no check involved at all.The system handles that fine. Again, you might want to ask about this in misc.taxes.moderated.No point. Its obvious what the reality is for anyonewith a clue from when no check is involved at all. The demands for proof made in audits sometimes sound silly and unintuitive until you hear about the clever scams that they are intended to thwart.Sure, but it works even when no check is involved at all. And all of the above really concerns only the IRS which is bound by some reasonable procedural guidelines. Dealing with private companies can be even worse. I have had on two separate occasions and with two different companies the problem of a (paid) COD shipment later being billed as well.Happens when the payment is made with other than a check too.The real world does somehow manage to continue to revolvearound its axis anyway, in spades when a card is involved. In one case I had the cancelled check and was able to eventually resolve the situation (though it required sending a copy to the president's office).And if you had paid using a card, it would be trivially resolvable even easier. In the other case they had required COD _cash_ and they never did believe me in spite of the fact that they still had in place a first-order-must-be-COD-cash policy and that had been my first order.Got nothing to with the check system being discussed. | > | The other obvious proof is the receipt for what was paid for etc | > | and the statement etc from who the payment was made to. | > I've never received a receipt or a statement from the | > IRS in response to my quarterly estimated payments. | > Just to pick an obvious tax-related example... | Thats a complete dud. That isnt something you | are claiming, or need to prove and they have | their own records of what you have paid etc. Umm, it's something you need to prove if their records don't agree with what you actually sent.Nope. And if you pay by card, you have the proof anyway. I've noticed that a lot of the arguments that consumers have no need to prove payment are based on the assumption that businesses and the government keep perfect records.You're completely off with the fairys, as usual.If you pay by card, you dont have any equivalent of thereturned check and the system works fine without it. In my experience both keep pretty good (but not perfect) records,Duh. but when they screw up they are not willing to just take my word for it.They dont need to if you pay using a card. Your experience may (probably does)
|
|
