<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rdf:RDF xml:base="http://www.tmicpa.com/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
 <channel rdf:about="http://www.tmicpa.com/taxonomy/term/5/0">
  <title>Thompson & McCarty, P.C. CPA - tax prep</title>
  <link>http://www.tmicpa.com/taxonomy/term/5/0</link>
  <description>Tax preparation service.
</description>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <items>
   <rdf:Seq>
    <rdf:li resource="http://www.tmicpa.com/homeowners2008" />
    <rdf:li resource="http://www.tmicpa.com/beware_irs" />
    <rdf:li resource="http://www.tmicpa.com/tax_credits" />
   </rdf:Seq>
  </items>
 </channel>
 <item rdf:about="http://www.tmicpa.com/homeowners2008">
  <title>Homeowner's Catch Some Tax Breaks For 2008 and 2009</title>
  <link>http://www.tmicpa.com/homeowners2008</link>
  <description>&lt;p&gt;For the 2008 tax year homeowner's will be getting a tax break for property taxes even if they are unable to itemize.  The deduction will be added to the standard deduction and is the lessor of actual property tax or $500 per taxpayer ($1000 for Married filing joint).  I think it is interesting that Congress feels that it is important enough to address this issue then limit the deduction to $500 per taxpayer.  That comes straight from the political handbook of tell them your helping them then take it back.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
  <dc:date>2008-12-26T05:13:47Z</dc:date>
  <dc:subject>tax prep</dc:subject>
 </item>
 <item rdf:about="http://www.tmicpa.com/beware_irs">
  <title>BEWARE THE IRS</title>
  <link>http://www.tmicpa.com/beware_irs</link>
  <description>&lt;p&gt;I recently had a client that had an issue with the IRS.  This is their story and how it all turned out.  The very start of the story began with us making a mistake on their 2006 tax return.  We left a zero off of a deduction that cost the taxpayer a substantial deduction.  The return had been transmitted before the taxpayer discovered the error.  The balance due on the original return had not been paid.  In our defense, the deduction was verbally stated and undocumented to us so it was impossible to discover the error with our review process.  There is a lesson in that, but I digress.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
  <dc:date>2008-10-09T04:55:58Z</dc:date>
  <dc:subject>tax prep</dc:subject>
 </item>
 <item rdf:about="http://www.tmicpa.com/tax_credits">
  <title>New Tax Credits Mean Bigger Refunds For Most</title>
  <link>http://www.tmicpa.com/tax_credits</link>
  <description>&lt;p&gt;There are two hot tax topics that are new for the 2006 filing season (that is right now).  One biggie is the telephone excise tax refund which can only be claimed on your 2006 return.  This is actually a refund of excise taxes that were charged on our phone bills on long distance telephone calls after February 28th, 2003.  The IRS lost the right to charge this tax in Court then lost 5 different Federal Appeals before they gave up and quit charging us the tax on long distance phone services.  The refund applies to individuals, businesses, and tax exempt organizations.  The refund applies to any phone, including cell phones, and bundled services.  There are different rules for each group so how you apply for it will vary.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
  <dc:date>2007-01-24T04:42:06Z</dc:date>
  <dc:subject>tax prep</dc:subject>
 </item>
</rdf:RDF>
