[shirleytaxmaid74]

I HAD a client who wanted to claim her clothing and hairdo expenses. She has a jewellery business and had to have these expenses in order to look good for her business. I told her NO! that was a part of personal hygiene. Wonder if the CRA will let me claim Screeech, cause I need it to relax. Just a thought :lol:

[davemorias]

Well, if she became self employed as an Ecdysiast there would be a lot more to take off..... ..I mean write off.

[unknown]

When I was still smoking, I always thought it was reasonable to deduct the cost of my smokes.... Most of the cost was taxes anyhow...

Guess you can use the same argument for Screech...

Used to be a line for it even on the tax return - gifts to the crown

Still arguing in tax court...................................................................

[samhill]

davemorias, on Apr 19 2007, 03:08 PM, said:

Well, if she became self employed as an Ecdysiast there would be a lot more to take off..... ..I mean write off.

Yes, dave, I have a couple of retired Ecdysiasts and a couple who are still practicing, as clients.

I am in Vancouver of course!

[Joe]

samhill, on Apr 19 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

Yes, dave, I have a couple of retired Ecdysiasts and a couple who are still practicing, as clients.

And clearly in order to prepare their tax returns properly you need to regularly and closely inspect their business operations and product..
.

[davemorias]

you mean Joe, massaging the file?

[Joe]

davemorias, on Apr 19 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

you mean Joe, massaging the file?

ROTFL

I was about to add that samhill probably needs some assistance in those tasks from some of the forum experts here...
.

[James1]

samhill, on Apr 19 2007, 04:39 PM, said:

Yes, dave, I have a couple of retired Ecdysiasts and a couple who are still practicing, as clients.

I am in Vancouver of course!

Explain to me why they would need to write off clothing??? ;)

James

[JohnV]

I'm not touching this with a ten foot pole :rolleyes:

[Joe]

JohnV, on Apr 19 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

I'm not touching this with a ten foot pole :rolleyes:

Dont brag, LittleJohn... :o
.

[davemorias]

The Pole is probably a Capital Item depreciable over time.

[spenceh]

shirleytaxmaid74, on Apr 19 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

I HAD a client who wanted to claim her clothing and hairdo expenses. She has a jewellery business and had to have these expenses in order to look good for her business. I told her NO! that was a part of personal hygiene. Wonder if the CRA will let me claim Screeech, cause I need it to relax. Just a thought :lol:

One client's former tax preparer wrote off clothing, hairdresser AND makeup.

Another tax preparer (read CA) told a client there were no deductions for moving from BC to Alberta. They didn't believe it B) so their 2006 refund increased by almost $7,000 due to their receipts and expenses related to the move to AB from BC.

[JohnV]

I suppose in all seriousness :) that we should say that, unders certain circumstances, writing off clothes and make up etc is allowed. Had an entertainer client for a few years until she moved...she never "broke" and settled into doing radio up in the NO wilds.....and her stage clothing\makeup was definitely an allowed expense, and there are other instances where it is possible.

As for the jewelry shop person, ONLY if it was a work uniform would her clothing be allowed...and I don't think it is the case here


OK, back to the humour and bad puns here....

[RL Tax Joe]

spenceh, on Apr 19 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

Another tax preparer (read CA) told a client there were no deductions for moving from BC to Alberta. They didn't believe it B) so their 2006 refund increased by almost $7,000 due to their receipts and expenses related to the move to AB from BC.

Enough with the designation bashing. We have already been down that road and I am in no mood to be seeing that kind of garbage Helga.

As I have said before. It doesn't matter what your designation is, none of them teach tax to the fullest extent. It is the individual and not the letters. I trust I will not see anymore bashing from you.

Thank you

[James1]

RL Tax Joe, on Apr 20 2007, 08:27 AM, said:

Enough with the designation bashing. We have already been down that road and I am in no mood to be seeing that kind of garbage Helga.

As I have said before. It doesn't matter what your designation is, none of them teach tax to the fullest extent. It is the individual and not the letters. I trust I will not see anymore bashing from you.

Thank you

I would have to agree with you Tax Joe. Helga, you are only getting one side of the conversation your new client had with the tax preparer. You do not know what your client actually said to the other preparer to make generalizations like that. If a potential client comes in complaining that their prior tax preparer was doing it wrong. I start to wonder if the individual is opinion shopping.

James

[James1]

spenceh, on Apr 19 2007, 09:38 PM, said:

Another tax preparer (read CA) told a client there were no deductions for moving from BC to Alberta. They didn't believe it B) so their 2006 refund increased by almost $7,000 due to their receipts and expenses related to the move to AB from BC.

Maybe they moved from Sparewood B.C to Coleman Alberta ;)

They also may have told the other preparer they moved because they liked the weather not for a job <_<

You just do not know.

James

[spenceh]

RL Tax Joe, on Apr 20 2007, 08:27 AM, said:

Enough with the designation bashing. We have already been down that road and I am in no mood to be seeing that kind of garbage Helga.

As I have said before. It doesn't matter what your designation is, none of them teach tax to the fullest extent. It is the individual and not the letters. I trust I will not see anymore bashing from you.

Thank you

I was simply stating the facts. If an RPA were giving misinformation, I would refer to the RPA designation (and report them to the Association).

The client was not asking me or the previous accountant to claim these items. The accountant requested it. The client was employed as haridresser and her boss sold product. She did not. She provided the requested receipts but has since questioned the deduction.

Regarding the move, it was always work related.

I have high regard for some with various designations and virtually none for others. The same for some taxparers without designations. One local preparer, (no designation) now retired, was great. The now defunct local H & R Block left behind a mess of errors.

Had the preparer been an RPA, CGA, whatever, I would have noted those, too.

(By the way, I DO find mistakes in my files after tax season that sometimes make ME cringe and can't for the life of me believe I made that kind of mistake. )

[James1]

spenceh, on Apr 20 2007, 09:56 AM, said:

Had the preparer been an RPA, CGA, whatever, I would have noted those, too.

Helga,

There is no point in mentioning that the person has a professional designation or not. It is better to use generic names like "the previous tax preparer". By mentioning a designation you are only likely to start an argument in the thread because it will only get the members of that designation upset.

Your comment was fine except for the fact you mentioned a particular designation.



James

[davemorias]

You mean designations like BS. , MS. , and P.HD. ??

Bull S

More S

Piled Higher & Deeper

[ChrisG]

davemorias, on Apr 20 2007, 10:51 AM, said:

You mean designations like BS. , MS. , and P.HD. ??

Bull S

More S

Piled Higher & Deeper

As someone who takes pride in my graduate degree in the social sciences, I find the above insulting and offensive.