I am FUMING mad!!!!!!!!!!!!

[New Hampshire]

Whoa whoa whoa, for starters we are making a rather large leap that the OP is not actually claiming her income from these shots. I don't believe the OP actually made any statement to the fact that she was not claiming said moneys.

Brian

 

[bigtwinky]

No, no one is saying that. Just like all threads, they tend to deviate after a bit.

 

[Boomn4x4]

Facebook and Craigs list can be valuable marketing tools. You just need to learn how to use them to your advantage... and it sounds like your competition is doing just that.

 

[KmH]

If you are self-employed, you don't have to file a return if you made less than $400 in the taxable year. Do You Need to File a Federal Income Tax Return?

Of course if you can't make $400 in a 12 month period ($33.33 a month), it's a real stretch to be calling yourself self-employed. :er:

Any illegal business being conducted in a state that has sales taxes, needs to worry more about their state government than the Feds.

Business registration/licensing requirements are local/regional laws, and vary by town/city/and county in the US.

In states that have sales taxes, a business must register with the state sales tax agency.

Oh, I was going to mention some of the best business advice I ever got, ""Mind your own business, not the other guy's."

 

[ababysean]

What I am confused, is it $400 after expenses of before?

 

[~Stella~]

There is nothing about the original post that suggests anyone is committing tax fraud.

Actually there is. The business practices of the offender cast a huge shadow of doubt over their honesty and integrity as a whole. Thats how lawyers win cases all day long without hard evidence.

I agree the competitor here sounds like a real asshole, but this is a very silly statement. Apparently you haven't spent much time inside a courtroom.

 

[~Stella~]

What I am confused, is it $400 after expenses of before?

Net income.

 

[bigtwinky]

Ill go out on a limb, but id think its $400 income. But hey, he posted the link, check it out and let us know

 

[ghache]

LOL peoples are retarded, I had a situation like this happening to me when i took turned my photography into a business . I have one friend i went to school with (a really good friend) wont talk to me anymore and talk **** behind my back to our common friends saying that i am not good because i didnt went to school to be a photographer LOL. I just let it go. No time to deal with kids LOL

And its not like im stealing business from him. we live 1000 miles away from each other hahahah

 

[gsgary]

Ill go out on a limb, but id think its $400 income. But hey, he posted the link, check it out and let us know

WOW thats not much, this is what it say on the UK gov website
Income Tax

Everyone can earn a certain amount each year without paying any Income Tax. This is called your Personal Allowance. In 2010-11 the Personal Allowance is £6,475. Some people can earn a bit more before they start paying tax, if they're over 65, for example.
There are a number of other allowances and reliefs you may be able to claim to reduce your tax bill - and in some cases mean you’ve no tax to pay.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

There is nothing about the original post that suggests anyone is committing tax fraud.

Actually there is. The business practices of the offender cast a huge shadow of doubt over their honesty and integrity as a whole. Thats how lawyers win cases all day long without hard evidence.

I agree the competitor here sounds like a real asshole, but this is a very silly statement. Apparently you haven't spent much time inside a courtroom.

First off, my original statement about the tax fraud, was half kidding, but it turned into a debate.


As for my statement, sure it was a little simplified, but I assure you that it is quite true. ( I did not mean it in reference to prosecuting this specific case, since that would be silly and the IRS wouldn't prosecute you unless of course you did not pay up. Also they would not fine you unless they did have solid proof. ) What I meant was, lawyers use assumptions to discredit witnesses or plaintiff/defendent in front of a jury ( or a judge ). They paint a picture of the type of person they are in order to show the probablity that someones actions are very likely, or to show that someones testimony cannot be trusted due to prior transgressions. It doesn't matter how much time I have spent in a court room. I have a family member that is a lawyer and a county judge ( not that it matters much since this is pretty basic stuff ). If you refute these simple trial basics, you are the silly one.:thumbup:

 

[~Stella~]

Actually there is. The business practices of the offender cast a huge shadow of doubt over their honesty and integrity as a whole. Thats how lawyers win cases all day long without hard evidence.

I agree the competitor here sounds like a real asshole, but this is a very silly statement. Apparently you haven't spent much time inside a courtroom.

First off, my original statement about the tax fraud, was half kidding, but it turned into a debate.


As for my statement, sure it was a little simplified, but I assure you that it is quite true. ( I did not mean it in reference to prosecuting this specific case, since that would be silly and the IRS wouldn't prosecute you unless of course you did not pay up. Also they would not fine you unless they did have solid proof. ) What I meant was, lawyers use assumptions to discredit witnesses or plaintiff/defendent in front of a jury ( or a judge ). They paint a picture of the type of person they are in order to show the probablity that someones actions are very likely, or to show that someones testimony cannot be trusted due to prior transgressions. It doesn't matter how much time I have spent in a court room. I have a family member that is a lawyer and a county judge ( not that it matters much since this is pretty basic stuff ). If you refute these simple trial basics, you are the silly one.:thumbup:

It's a complicated issue, not nearly as simple as you've stated. Whether an individual has a rap sheet of drug offenses (or assault charges or whatever) a mile long is likely to be guilty of another similar offense is totally different than suggesting that because someone is guilty of certain Craigslist (or was if FB?) transgressions (legal though they may be) is also guilty of illegal conduct. In fact - most naughty acts like that are not even admissible unless they are extremely pertinent to the case - and even then will not be permitted if they are overly prejudicial. For example, a DWI charge from 5 years ago is absolutely not going to be allowed in court to prove you breached your business contract this year, KWIM? It just doesn't work like that.

Suggesting someone has broken a law that they have not broken is considered in some states to be (civil) libel (or slander - depending on the format, obviously) per se (meaning the only defense would be actual proof of the crime). Should your libelous activity be brought up in court the next time you get a speeding ticket? Of course not - that's just goofy. And a big waste of time - which judges tend to get pretty grumpy about.

My point is that there are some very specific reasons to bring prior bad acts in, but to theorize that attorneys can just bring in any old fact, completely unrelated to the case at hand, into the case to prove their point...well, that's the stuff of TV courtrooms. And it makes for good drama, but like so many other things on TV - it just doesn't happen in the real world.

That said, I like your username and I've liked some of your other posts, so I'd be willing to hold hands and sing Kumbaya at this point. It is Valentine's Day and all.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

My point is that there are some very specific reasons to bring prior bad acts in, but to theorize that attorneys can just bring in any old fact, completely unrelated to the case at hand, into the case to prove their point...well, that's the stuff of TV courtrooms. And it makes for good drama, but like so many other things on TV - it just doesn't happen in the real world.

I was gonna say...
When I was being sued, I was very dissappointed that we couldn't bring up unrelated stuff to color the plaintiff an asshole. :lmao: But it is a two way street, and a lot of things he was bringing to the table, were rejected as not being pertinant to the case. The process was horrible, and took way to long.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I agree the competitor here sounds like a real asshole, but this is a very silly statement. Apparently you haven't spent much time inside a courtroom.

First off, my original statement about the tax fraud, was half kidding, but it turned into a debate.


As for my statement, sure it was a little simplified, but I assure you that it is quite true. ( I did not mean it in reference to prosecuting this specific case, since that would be silly and the IRS wouldn't prosecute you unless of course you did not pay up. Also they would not fine you unless they did have solid proof. ) What I meant was, lawyers use assumptions to discredit witnesses or plaintiff/defendent in front of a jury ( or a judge ). They paint a picture of the type of person they are in order to show the probablity that someones actions are very likely, or to show that someones testimony cannot be trusted due to prior transgressions. It doesn't matter how much time I have spent in a court room. I have a family member that is a lawyer and a county judge ( not that it matters much since this is pretty basic stuff ). If you refute these simple trial basics, you are the silly one.:thumbup:

It's a complicated issue, not nearly as simple as you've stated. Whether an individual has a rap sheet of drug offenses (or assault charges or whatever) a mile long is likely to be guilty of another similar offense is totally different than suggesting that because someone is guilty of certain Craigslist (or was if FB?) transgressions (legal though they may be) is also guilty of illegal conduct. In fact - most naughty acts like that are not even admissible unless they are extremely pertinent to the case - and even then will not be permitted if they are overly prejudicial. For example, a DWI charge from 5 years ago is absolutely not going to be allowed in court to prove you breached your business contract this year, KWIM? It just doesn't work like that.

Suggesting someone has broken a law that they have not broken is considered in some states to be (civil) libel (or slander - depending on the format, obviously) per se (meaning the only defense would be actual proof of the crime). Should your libelous activity be brought up in court the next time you get a speeding ticket? Of course not - that's just goofy. And a big waste of time - which judges tend to get pretty grumpy about.

My point is that there are some very specific reasons to bring prior bad acts in, but to theorize that attorneys can just bring in any old fact, completely unrelated to the case at hand, into the case to prove their point...well, that's the stuff of TV courtrooms. And it makes for good drama, but like so many other things on TV - it just doesn't happen in the real world.

That said, I like your username and I've liked some of your other posts, so I'd be willing to hold hands and sing Kumbaya at this point. It is Valentine's Day and all.

Point taken but as long as a lawyer can illustrate any pattern (lying, cheating, stealing ) thats on record, they can cast doubt on a person. It doesn't have to be a crime they were previously convicted of. If someone lies during sworn testomony, it can cast doubt on everything else that they testify. However, this has been blown way out of proportion and I do not think you understood what I was saying in my original comment. You made the claim that nothing in the OPs comments indicate tax fraud. My point was that there are ways to logically guess at something. I did not mean taking this person to court. I am saying that behavior can dictate probability. I was comparing how one can arrive at that assumption in a similar way that a lawyer thinks or works. If this person has a apparent pattern of underhanded tactics I would also assume that those under handed tactics apply to other aspects of their business. Whether that would end up being right or not, would be a gamble to a degree.

 

[~Stella~]

My point is that there are some very specific reasons to bring prior bad acts in, but to theorize that attorneys can just bring in any old fact, completely unrelated to the case at hand, into the case to prove their point...well, that's the stuff of TV courtrooms. And it makes for good drama, but like so many other things on TV - it just doesn't happen in the real world.

I was gonna say...
When I was being sued, I was very disappointed that we couldn't bring up unrelated stuff to color the plaintiff an asshole. :lmao: But it is a two way street, and a lot of things he was bringing to the table, were rejected as not being pertinent to the case. The process was horrible, and took way too long.

100% true, in almost any case.

I will say this - when you are dealing with custody cases (I do not and will not - they are ugly and unpleasant), there is a lot more that is legitimately pertinent to the case than almost any other type of legal proceeding. After all - that DWI from 5 years ago might actually be important in determining what is in the best interests of a child if it relates to a string of similarly irresponsible behavior. I suppose a layperson spending time in family court might get the impression that the same might apply to other cases, but they'd be wrong.

Can we veer any further off the beaten path?