|
Posted by Kurt Ullman on May 28, 2008, 7:20 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> > At what point can one reasonably assume the tax laws (regulations? codes?)
> > are final for 2008?
> >
> > December 31, 2007?
> > December 31, 2008?
> > April 15, 2009?
> > or some other date?
>
> When the President signs it or Congress overrides his veto - just like any
> other federal law.
I think that is basically his concern. Is there a drop-dead time for
the Congress to pass it, etc.? In theory, probably 12-32-08. In real
life, whenever Congress adjourns for Christmas, usually around 12-15 or
so.
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Barry Margolin on May 28, 2008, 9:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options
In article
>
> > > At what point can one reasonably assume the tax laws (regulations? codes?)
> > > are final for 2008?
> > >
> > > December 31, 2007?
> > > December 31, 2008?
> > > April 15, 2009?
> > > or some other date?
> >
> > When the President signs it or Congress overrides his veto - just like any
> > other federal law.
>
> I think that is basically his concern. Is there a drop-dead time for
> the Congress to pass it, etc.? In theory, probably 12-32-08. In real
> life, whenever Congress adjourns for Christmas, usually around 12-15 or
> so.
But remember that the economic stimulus package, which approved the tax
rebates this year, wasn't passed until February.
In most cases, if there's something still up in the air at the end of
the year, it's reasonably well known.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Kurt Ullman on May 28, 2008, 11:38 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> But remember that the economic stimulus package, which approved the tax
> rebates this year, wasn't passed until February.
>
Yeah, but that is, if I understood the semi-byzantine law, deals
with 2008's taxes. It is just that 2007 taxes had to be filed to get it.
There were no changes in a past year's law.
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by AES on May 28, 2008, 11:29 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> At what point can one reasonably assume the tax laws (regulations? codes?)
> are final for 2008?
>
> December 31, 2007?
> December 31, 2008?
> April 15, 2009?
> or some other date?
Have never understood how it could (or should) be anything other than
the first of these, given the phrase in Article I, Section 9, of the
Constitution, which proves that: "No . . . ex post facto Law will be
passed."
Without being quite as fervent as James Madison, Federalist Number 44,
1788:
"Šex post facto laws Š are contrary to the first principles of the
social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... sudden
changes and legislative interferences Š become jobs [i.e., tools, or
tactics?] in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and
snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the
community."
it just seems to me that one should be able to make good faith financial
decisions -- at least for the duration of a given year -- based on the
tax laws relevant to those decisions _at the time they are made_.
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Stuart Bronstein on May 29, 2008, 10:55 am
Please log in for more thread options
> Have never understood how it could (or should) be anything other
> than the first of these, given the phrase in Article I, Section 9,
> of the Constitution, which proves that: "No . . . ex post facto
> Law will be passed."
The restriction against "ex post facto law" has generally been held to
apply only to criminal laws. Such laws change the status of facts and
relationships or the consequences of acts retroactively.
Otherwise courts uphold retroactive laws all the time. One of my
favorite cases is one in which the California Supreme Court held a
statute was retroactive.
The statute in question stated that any contract clause entitling one
party to attorneys fees in case of dispute would apply to all parties
to the contract. It also said, "The provisions of this statute cannot
be waived in any contract entered into after the effective date
hereof."
The court said that the statute clearly meant that the effect of the
statute could be waived in contracts entered into before the effective
date of the statute. But no such waiver would have been necessary if
the statute weren't retroactive. So the legislature must have meant it
to be retroactive.
Stu
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Anyone know MA state sales tax laws? | January 13, 2007, 1:53 am |
| final return: IRD calculation | February 13, 2008, 4:45 pm |
| Final Regs Published Section 152(e) | July 2, 2008, 10:37 am |
| Final results of the survey of knowledge-sharing | September 23, 2007, 7:44 pm |
| decedent final return: need to file 1096? | March 1, 2008, 6:02 pm |
| stimulus payment - final post on this topic | March 4, 2008, 8:53 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap