|
Posted by Katie on October 21, 2006, 6:33 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Drew Edmundson wrote:
>> Drew Edmundson wrote:
>>> WEBSCHULLW@aol.com wrote:
>>>> Back in July of 2000 in the message
>>>>
>>>>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.taxes.moderated/msg/ecdac93da35bb233
>>>>
>>>> I questioned whether a MFS requirement for a non-resident
>>>> found in North Carolina instructions was actually contained
>>>> in a North Carolina statute. When the usual suspects
>>>> weighed in on the side of North Carolina, they overlooked
>>>> one VERY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. One of the "suspects"
>>>> actually identified that VERY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION in
>>>> comments related to another issue posted in another thread
>>>> in this group earlier this year.
> snip
>>>> Anyone, other than Katie in San Diego, care to opine on what
>>>> VERY IMPORTANT CONDSIDERATION was overloked?
>>> And what was that? As I pointed out originally the NC
>>> instructions repeat the NC Administrative Rules/Regulations.
>>> Since the law was unclear, and you have agreed it was, then
>>> the NC DOR is allowed to interpret it in a reasonable
>>> manner. They did so, that is why legislation was required
>>> to change the law.
>> Drew, I'm not sure I agree with you. I do think the NC
>> DOR's interpretation of the prior law might be successfully
>> challenged under the privileges and immunities clause of the
>> U.S. Constitution.
> snip
>
> Katie I won't argue constitutional law with you as I feel I
> am outgunned. But I will quote you back to yourself from
> the original thread: "I agree, it's screwy, but it looks to
> me like a reasonable interpretation of the statute as she is
> writ. In fact, I don't see anything in the statute that
> would empower the DOR to allow anyone who doesn't meet the
> requirements of subsection (e) to file jointly."
>
> I guess you have revised your prior opinion. :-)
That happens more often than you might suppose <G>.
The disclaimer on all my teaching materials ends with
"Further, the author reserves the right to change her mind
on any point without notice."
Katie in San Diego
<< ======================================================= >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ======================================================= >>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap