Talk:Tax returns in the United States

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Ariel. in topic History of the tax return
edit

On 25 June 2006 certain material was added to the article, much of it apparently copied from http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/decoding.htm

for which copyright is claimed by WorldNetDaily.com

I removed the inserted material. Yours, Famspear 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply


 I came to the article page to try and figure out why a tax return is not a "tax report",why the word "return" is used.
It still makes no sense.BrianAlex (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Public release

edit

This article could probably use a section about the public release of tax returns by candidates. I will start same.108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

That has very little to do with the topic of tax returns. Seems like just another excuse to insert POV. Belchfire-TALK 17:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Belchfire, while I almost always agree with you, this is an exception. The best way (maybe the only way) to eliminate POV at Wikipedia is to insert information that is NPOV. The material that you've removed is clearly NPOV; it's simply historical information about how many tax returns have been publicly released by presidential nominees. This info seems very appropriate for Wikipedia, and there doesn't seem to be any article better than this one to put it. I'll put it back, and hope that you'll point out how it can be improved rather than wiped clean. Thanks. Incidentally, I'm the same person as 108.18.174.123. After I created this section, I pointed to it as a reason why the article on Mitt Romney's tax returns should be deleted. This is the proper way to cover the issue, not by a POV attack article. I'm concerned that by deleting this section, you're weakening the case against the attack article. See what I'm getting at? Cheers.64.251.57.34 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Can't there be a stand-alone article on the release of financial documents by US Presidential candidates? — goethean 19:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
There could be, but there doesn't seem to be enough information to justify it.64.251.57.34 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The section on public release of tax returns by U.S. presidential candidates may be of interest to some people because of its relationship to the recent Mitt Romney-tax return news stories, but the material does appear to be a bit tangential to the article over all. Famspear (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yep, and it's got nothing to do with NPOV. This is a matter of simple relevance. This article is about tax returns. It's not about political candidates. The information that's been inserted here is nothing but a WP:COATRACK. Belchfire-TALK 21:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Belchfire, no one has suggested any Wikipedia article that would be more relevant for this information about candidates' tax returns. Likewise, no one has suggested that it belongs nowhere in the encyclopedia. So doesn't that mean that this is the best place in the encyclopedia, at least for now? If there's a better place, would you please identify it? Isn't it better to move encyclopedic content to a better place rather than just erase it? Presumably you would object to creating a new article about it, because there is not enough information about it. Here's the material that now seems to be completely deleted from Wikipedia:


You say that this is coatracking. Coatracking is defined like this: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject" (emphasis added). How the heck is it biased to simply show the history of candidates releasing their tax forms? In fact, if you look at this list, you'll see that several candidates have released FEWER than Romney has released, and that even Obama released fewer in 2008 than the 12 years of returns that he has demanded from Romney. There is nothing biased about this. 64.251.57.34 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have moved the section here.64.251.57.34 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
"I can't think of any place else to put it" is not a very good reason to put it here. Yes, it's a coatrack. Belchfire-TALK 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Instead of completely deleting neutral info from Wikipedia, you'd probably be better off suggesting the best place to put it. Anyway, I admire your editing, so I don't want to have any quarrel with you.64.251.57.34 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear user at IP 64.251.57.34: The burden of showing whether the material is appropriate for Wikipedia, and for showing the "best place" to put it, is on the editor proposing the material for inclusion in Wikipedia. Other editors are not under some sort of obligation to do that for you. Famspear (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but at the same time you also have WP:Preserve.64.134.98.120 (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, that Wikipedia guideline or policy deals with keeping good information and not deleting it "solely because it is poorly presented." The issue that other editors are talking about here is: Does this material even belong in the article? The salient points are (1) that you, as the person proposing to insert the material, have the burden of persuading other editors that the material belongs here, and (2) that other editors who are not so persuaded are not under some obligation to you to find a better place for it. That's your job, not theirs. Famspear (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
WP:Preserve says: "Instead of deleting text, consider....moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)". But the matter is moot, because I have moved the material. Cheers.24.181.178.235 (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ a b “Income Tax Returns Released for Last 12 Years by Romney”, United Press International via St. Joseph Gazette (November 27, 1967).
  2. ^ Shaxson, Nicholas (August 2012). "Where the Money Lives". Vanity Fair.
  3. ^ “Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ claim about release of tax returns of major candidates is false, says PolitiFact Florida”, Amy Sherman, Miami Herald, August 19, 2012.
  4. ^ "Romney and the Tax Return Precedent", FactCheck.org (July 19, 2012).
  5. ^ Michael D. Shear; Trip Gabriel (July 18, 2012). "Romney Steadfast in the Face of Growing Calls to Release More Tax Returns". The New York Times. Retrieved July 19, 2012. 'In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy, And I'm simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort and lie about.'
  6. ^ Bailey, Holly (August 16, 2012).Romney: ‘I never paid less than 13 percent’ in taxes.Yahoo news

refund check expiration

edit

Is there an expiration date for federal refund checks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.96.117 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

edit

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tax returns in the United States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

Start class because the article needs more content on context, impact, and history.EECavazos 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

==WP Tax Priority==

Low priority because the article is on an administrative matter.EECavazos 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

History of the tax return

edit

It would be very interesting if someone could research the history of tax returns - when was the first tax return ever? How did it differ? How did it change over time? Maybe I'll have time one day to do it myself...... Ariel. (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply