Re: OT Government Fraud

[Larry Cartwright <exit60@CABLESPEED.COM>]

Dana Andrews wrote:
>     As a professional tax preparer, I too can attest that the government
> was not entirely up front about the rebate vs. advance payment issue.  As
> for a line item on the 1040, check out page 2.  It is going to be listed
> as a non-refundable credit.  If you recieved no rebate, it will make no
> difference to you, but if you did, it could reduce your anticipated
> refund.

I apologize for prolonging this not-physics thread, but the above is IMO
a misleading assessment of the effect of the advance payment.

The "rate reduction credit" on 1040/2 is simply an opportunity for those
who have not received a rebate to get it now if they are entitled to
it.  It's a credit; a credit can only increase your refund, not reduce
it.  If you already got your payment, you leave this blank (per the
worksheet instructions) and it does nothing to your refund.

I'm assuming that "anticipated refund" means a refund comparable to that
which one has received in recent years.  If you received no rebate but
were entitled to one, this credit will *increase* your anticipated
refund; if you have already received your entitled rebate, this credit
does nothing to your refund.

The only people who are going to be disappointed by all of this are
those rabid optimists who thought they were getting BOTH a 2001 tax
rebate and a 2001 tax rate cut.  Neither the most silver-tongued of our
politicians nor the most dim-witted of our journalists ever made that
promise.

Ever ready to defend my very good friends at the IRS :-) ,

Larry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Larry Cartwright   <exit60@cablespeed.com>
Retired (June 2001) Physics Teacher
Charlotte MI 48813 USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~