Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

221 Cannon is Not For Sale

fredbenenson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#271

Post by mindslight »

pdonis wrote: post #270
mindslight wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a weird tangential rant. There is a difference between tax codes and general principles of accounting. I feel pretty confident that if a state tax authority agrees with the deed date being the transfer date, then the IRS would as well. Also no, state tax codes can be pretty complex as well. On this particular issue, I had trouble finding an attorney who would represent me for less than $10k (while still equivo…

> general principles of accounting. I'm not sure what those have to do with this question, since it's a legal question, not an accounting question. > I feel pretty confident that if a state tax authority agrees with the deed date being the transfer date, then the IRS would as well. In many cases a state tax authority wouldn't even be involved, since many states don't tax capital gains (which is what would be involved…

This turned very argumentative very fast. I had thought we were having an amicable discussion about the semantics of real estate titles.

I mentioned my experience with a state tax authority because it is direct personal experience about this very topic. I don't know why you turned that into being about the IRS, and are now even seemingly rejecting the state tax authority "being involved". The date of the transfer was directly relevant to my disagreement with the state tax authority, and they didn't question that date being the deed date even though the recording happened some time later. Either believe me or not, I don't care.

> Evidently your experiences with government bureaucracies have been very, very different from mine.

Sure? I'm not saying they were a some pleasant, responsive, quick, and casual experience - rather much less bad than I was expecting. And dealing with some corporate bureaucracies has been much worse, with constant transferring and calling back every week to check on status and make sure a ticket didn't get stuck and timeout, etc.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#272

Post by pdonis »

mindslight wrote: post #271
pdonis wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> general principles of accounting. I'm not sure what those have to do with this question, since it's a legal question, not an accounting question. > I feel pretty confident that if a state tax authority agrees with the deed date being the transfer date, then the IRS would as well. In many cases a state tax authority wouldn't even be involved, since many states don't tax capital gains (which is what would be involved…

This turned very argumentative very fast. I had thought we were having an amicable discussion about the semantics of real estate titles. I mentioned my experience with a state tax authority because it is direct personal experience about this very topic. I don't know why you turned that into being about the IRS, and are now even seemingly rejecting the state tax authority "being involved". The date of the transfer was…

> I don't know why you turned that into being about the IRS

Um, because that's what I orginally began talking about when the topic of taxes came up? Go back and look at the first post of mine in this subthread where I explicitly mentioned the IRS. You brought up state tax authorities after that, not before.

> and are now even seemingly rejecting the state tax authority "being involved".

If you sell a home in a state that doesn't tax capital gains--such as the state I live in, and indeed every state in which i have sold a home--then the state tax authority is not involved. Which is what I already explicitly said.

> Sure?

Quite sure. I never assumed your experience was "pleasant, responsive, quick and casual"--indeed, your "much less bad than I was expecting" was how I already had read your previous post. And that experience is, as I said, very, very different from experiences I have had with government bureaucracies (not all such experiences, but enough of them that they are not outliers), for which the most charitable description I could give would be "much, much worse than I was expecting".

> dealing with some corporate bureaucracies has been much worse

I certainly have had bad experiences with corporate bureaucracies as well, and I was in no way implying that they are any better than government bureaucracies. My average experience with both is probably about the same.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#273

Post by ghaff »

m463 wrote: post #163
kstrauser wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the dark old days before Apple Pay, where it was common in America to hand your credit/debit card to some rando at a restaurant and have them disappear with it for a few minutes, about once a year my bank would call me to ask if I'd been using my card in some far-off locale: "Hi! Are you in Tijuana?" "Not since 1993. Why? What's up?" "So you didn't just try to buy gasoline at a PEMEX there?" "Nope, I'm in San Fran…

I think tap-to-pay terminals that the server carries now eliminate more of this. but occasionally I have to give my card over. On the other hand, stolen credit cards were kept by the restaurant and they got a reward. Nowadays I don't think there is ANY checking of whose card is being used.

>tap-to-pay terminals

Becoming marginally more popular in the US but still the exception.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#274

Post by ghaff »

recursive wrote: post #108
kstrauser wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not especially, I don't think. It's incredibly common according to everything I see online.

I guess I'm just lucky.

"everything I see online" is probably disproportionately outliers. I use a credit card hundreds of times a year in many places around the world and at least cursorily keep my eye on charges in my statements and fraudulent charges are rare--like maybe every few years at most.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#275

Post by ghaff »

Hardwired8976 wrote: post #187
kstrauser wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the dark old days before Apple Pay, where it was common in America to hand your credit/debit card to some rando at a restaurant and have them disappear with it for a few minutes, about once a year my bank would call me to ask if I'd been using my card in some far-off locale: "Hi! Are you in Tijuana?" "Not since 1993. Why? What's up?" "So you didn't just try to buy gasoline at a PEMEX there?" "Nope, I'm in San Fran…

Handing your credit card to pay is still such a foreign concept to me

I was having lunch at a hotel bar in Vegas a number of years back. A Brit, I think, was paying for his meal and he was like "why are they taking my card???" So I explained. In my experience in the UK, they don't want to even touch your card.

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#276

Post by ghaff »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #213
wildzzz wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mom used to tell me to write CHECK ID in the signature block. Someone only ever asked me once. It's probably been like 10 years since I've signed the back of a new card. An older woman at an antique shop actually checked for a signature and made me sign it in front of her.

The fact that a signature is, to date, a legally binding form of identification is baffling to me to be honest. More and more is digital these days, but still. (my "signature" is just a squiggle based on my initials and I can't reproduce it consistently)

I was telling my lawyer a couple of weeks ago that I wasn't even sure I could do it consistently any longer and actually practiced a bit before going to the office. She basically said "Do the best you can" :-)

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#277

Post by ghaff »

Aeolun wrote: post #165
raini wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

patio11 wrote a bunch about this: ( https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/working-title-insuran... )

I couldn’t keep reading this. Why is that thing so insane?

Because everything about real estate is insane if you peel back the covers. I've just been going through this and I couldn't tell you how many pages of documents I've had to go through. And this isn't even a new purchase. It's just trust and neighbor agreements (in part because the guy I bought the property from 25 years messed up some stuff).

Re: 221 Cannon is Not For Sale

#278

Post by stogot »

some_random wrote: post #211
stogot wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That first link does not prove your claim

Sorry no it doesn't prove my half joking claim it only documents a single case of a high profile terrorist plot from a small group that was led by an FBI informant, containing another 4 informants and agents, and funded by the FBI in which they had trouble convicting several defendants (despite a 95%+ conviction rate normally) for some reason no clue why.

Where is the proof to your claim the FBI informant “led” the plot as opposed to being aware and involved in the same group (how informants work to get inside information)
Post reply on HN