The Tri Doctrine

[+ Lucky]

Before he locked the thread that included discussions of tax law and saunas, tri added this final comment:

 

I only ask that you reflect on some of the things you've written; that you not heap scorn on other posters for enjoying activities you yourself have engaged in; and that you not inflate informal, casual statements that people may make into plans for vast, illegal schemes! I'm sure you understand how silly that is, and unbecoming to a person of your experience and standing.

 

It is good advice for many other discussions as well. Let's see how well it is followed!

[nycpaul]

My sentiments exactly!

[imrthr]

>I only ask that you reflect on some of the things you've

>written; that you not heap scorn on other posters for enjoying

>activities you yourself have engaged in; and that you not

>inflate informal, casual statements that people may make into

>plans for vast, illegal schemes! I'm sure you understand how

>silly that is, and unbecoming to a person of your experience

>and standing.

>

>

>

You are ridiculous! My postings were meant in good faith. They were meant to advise other readers of a credibility concern over a medical expense deduction boasted by another poster. My posting did not involve "heaping scorn" on that poster. You leaped to that inaccurate conclusions with your twisting of my well-meant caveat concerning the tax deduction.

 

The reasons for my postings were well explained. Apparently you have a problem accepting ideas that do not agree with you. As shown above, you referred to my caveat as "plans for vast, illegal schemes." What is wrong with you?

 

It is you who heaps scorn on posters if you do not agree with what they write. I could site examples of your rudeness and attacks on other posters but anyone who regularly reads this board is aware of your behavior.

 

Although I found most of your postings useful and accurate, I lost respect for you after you posted on this board, messages that allude to deceiving Brazilian immigration in connection with the maximum number of days each tourist is allowed to stay in Brazil each calendar year.

 

You went on-and-on about smudged and unreadable immigration stamps in a passport and on-and-on alleging that Brazilian immigration does not keep records of when a tourist leaves or enters Brazil. At one point you announced that you, yourself, have a problem with overstaying the allowable 180-day calendar year requirements.

 

Your hostile defense of the medical deduction “clinic” together with your postings in connection with the 180-day stay requirement leaves the impression that you think that laws were meant for anyone other than you and your associates.

 

So, Mr. Moderator (who thinks he is so correct and knowledgeable about everything), I suggest that you "reflect of some of the things you've written" and not heap scorn on those who do not post what you want to read. Clearly, your hostility goes far beyond what would be expected of a moderator on a public board.

 

I have been told that you must always have the last word in any disagreement. That is fine with me. Write what you want. I will not respond any more to your hypocritical foolishness.

[HotdadENYC]

Can someone direct us to the location of the original thread?

 

Thanks

 

 

hd NYC

[trilingual]

It's the very long thread started by TotallyOz entitled "Land of Uncut Cocks, Saunas and Beautiful Men."

[trilingual]

>You are ridiculous! My postings were meant in good faith.

>They were meant to advise other readers of a credibility

>concern over a medical expense deduction boasted by another

>poster. My posting did not involve "heaping scorn" on that

>poster. You leaped to that inaccurate conclusions with your

>twisting of my well-meant caveat concerning the tax deduction.

 

I'm certain your postings were in good faith. However, for whatever reason, you went well beyond advising other readers of a credibility "concern." You stated as a certainty that the only reason prospective patients would go to Big Daddy's proposed recovery center in Rio would actually be to spend all their time in saunas, and not for treatment, making any deduction of the expenses involved in such treatment fraudulent and unallowable. You also said that was obvious because during his private vacations in Brazil Big Daddy had spent his time going to saunas and hiring escorts, and that would somehow affect his credibility with the IRS, without explaining what the relationship between the two issues is, or even how the IRS was going to know about what Big Daddy does on holiday. You also flatly stated that claiming a deduction would trigger an audit, even though that is not a certainty.

 

You also didn't answer the questions I asked in the other thread, about how your own credibility as a tax adviser is affected by your own Brazilian sex holidays.

 

Perhaps you meant differently, but the tone of your original postings and discussion of Big Daddy's activities, intent and integrity do appear scornful to me and other readers. And in spite of your undoubted knowledge of U.S. tax law, you leapt to unprofessional assumptions about this particular fact situation that aren't supported by anything Big Daddy said or wrote about his planned enterprise.

 

> As shown above, you referred to my caveat as "plans for vast,

>illegal schemes." What is wrong with you?

 

To my knowledge, deliberately promoting tax fraud in conjunction with others constitutes an illegal scheme. The vastness, I suppose, depends on the numbers of people and dollars involved. However, your initial post assumed that the purpose of Big Daddy's proposed treatment program was fraudulent, which would make it an illegal tax avoidance scheme. Only after it was pointed out that there are many legitimate reasons why thousands of Americans seek medical treatment abroad, and many reasons why someone might want to attend a substance abuse program for English speakers outside the U.S.A. did you relent somewhat and agree that legitimate expenses for such a program would be deductible as medical expenses (subject to the 7.5% of AGI threshold) and that the airfare and other travel costs incident to the program also would be deductible, as long as the primary purpose of the trip was the medical treatment and that a taxpayer didn't spend more than 25% of his time during the trip in activities other than medically-related ones.

 

>It is you who heaps scorn on posters if you do not agree with

>what they write.

 

I certainly have heaped scorn on some ignorant posters. In this case, I know you're not ignorant and I wasn't heaping scorn on you. I was just trying to point out that you jumped to a lot of unfounded conclusions, and that you wrote scornfully of Big Daddy's adventures in Brazil, which is, at the least, hypocritical since you yourself have engaged in exactly the same activities in your visits to this country.

 

>Although I found most of your postings useful and accurate, I

>lost respect for you after you posted on this board, messages

>that allude to deceiving Brazilian immigration in connection

>with the maximum number of days each tourist is allowed to

>stay in Brazil each calendar year.

>

>You went on-and-on about smudged and unreadable immigration

>stamps in a passport and on-and-on alleging that Brazilian

>immigration does not keep records of when a tourist leaves or

>enters Brazil. At one point you announced that you, yourself,

>have a problem with overstaying the allowable 180-day calendar

>year requirements.

 

In response to reader's questions I told them what I know about Brazilian immigration law and how closely it's enforced. As far as I know, the information I provided is accurate. I've made it clear that overstaying the 180-day calendar year requirement exposes such a person to being treated by Brazil as a "resident" for taxation purposes. I also believe it was clear from my postings that if someone exceeds that limit it's at their own risk. It's up to individual readers to decide if they want to take that risk, once they know about it. However, I've NEVER said that Brazil does not keep records of when a tourist leaves or enters. I've said repeatedly and consistently that Brazil does monitor the 90-day entry requirement, which is easily controlled by the two-part "tourist card" foreigners receive on entry, the second part of which (containing the date of entry) must be surrendered to the Polícia Federal upon exiting Brazil. I have consistently counseled visitors NOT to overstay their 90-day entries (unless they apply for and receive a 90-day extension within Brazil from the Polícia Federal).

>

>Your hostile defense of the medical deduction “clinic”

>together with your postings in connection with the 180-day

>stay requirement leaves the impression that you think that

>laws were meant for anyone other than you and your associates.

>

My defense of the deductibility for medical treatment received at a bona fide foreign facility was not hostile. I believe it was factual and objective, and you have not demonstrated that I am in error. Since I have no reason to believe that Big Daddy intends to open anything but a bona fide recovery program in Brazil, treatment at and travel to such a facility would be deductible to the extent permitted by U.S. tax law, even if a taxpayer making such a claim is audited. You have conceded in your earlier postings that this is correct. We are also not in disagreement that if someone attempts to claim a false medical deduction that it may trigger an audit, and the taxpayer is at risk of having to pay any tax due, plus interest and penalties, and may also face possible criminal charges from deliberately trying to defraud the government. If someone wants to take those risks, they're free to do so. Nothing you or I say or do will stop them. However, they've been informed about the consequences of presenting a false tax return, and if they're caught, they can't say they weren't warned.

 

And that's about all I have to contribute to this particular discussion! But feel free to carry on, guys!

[HotdadENYC]

Thanks, trilingual. That IS a big long one; thread, I mean; but I'll check out as I get the time.

 

 

hd NYC

[Guest dreynsol]

Recently, I've been involved with two disagreements which had almost convinced me to quit posting at all. But, It would be unfair for many that have shared THEIR experiences for me not to share mine during my next trip.

 

Compared to many of you, I am a short-timer here, and I respect those of you that came before. There is a wealth of information that has been accumulated here, and I have met in person, friends for a lifetime through this board,

 

But, I also know of many people that have quit posting on this board for fear of their words being taken out of context or creating a public altercation. I hope none of these recent posts have added to that list.

 

We all have our own belief systems and agenda for our trips to South America. But, I don't think these differences can be resolved by public posts.

 

I was very impressed when 'song' sent me a private e-mail encouraging me to continue posting. It helped to share our points of view privately. nycpaul, I would love to get an e-mail from you explaining your point of view. My e-mail address is under my profile.

 

My heart goes out to jackhammer and his loss. IMHO, it shows that there are a lot more important issues to consider than the details of tax write-offs.

 

Fica calma! (stay calm) It IS the Brazilian way. :-)

 

Tchau,

- Drey