[Your posts] have a strong tendency to be misleading since they are based off of copy pasting various statutes and codes without any context as to how the IRS or other agencies actually enforce or view them. I sometimes wonder if you even understand what you are copy/pasting. ...
I'm not sure how to begin responding to this strange reply.
First of all, my post above was an original piece of writing (written by me). It was not copied or plagiarised from elsewhere, contrary to your allegation. Second, I'm not sure how you could read the post above and conclude that I don't understand my own writing. In just a few paragraphs, my post above describes the history of the legislative regime, analyses the relevant law, discusses the possible consequences of noncompliance with that law, and provides numerous references for its claims. It's a pretty concise and yet accurate treatment of a complicated subject. The post above is not something anybody could write without understanding the subject, especially in the short period of time that I wrote it in (around 20 minutes).
Your assertion that my post above does not consider "how the IRS or other agencies actually enforce or view [the law]" is factually inaccurate. My post above actually cited an IRS National Office Field Service Advice memo and a Private Letter Ruling to illustrate, by way of example, how the law is applied in practice (even though such documents are not precedential authority). There is also nothing misleading in my post above and you have not identified anything misleading. On the contrary, my posts are always extremely carefully qualified precisely to avoid misleading anybody about anything. This has a tendency of making them more complicated, but it's a necessary evil.
You are, however, correct about one thing: my posts are not, and are not intended to be, legal advice on any particular situation. They are intended to be more in the nature of academic scholarship, as I've mentioned numerous times. If you retained counsel for legal advice, they would give advice tailored to your specific situation rather than the academic discussions I post here. My posts are not intended to be a replacement for that, but if that is what people want, they should be retaining counsel, not posting on this forum. I often state that explicitly (including in the first sentence of the post above), and it's also stated in my signature below.
From your reply, I imagine you've never read any technical legal scholarship before, but if you ever do, you'll find it's similar to the content I post on this forum. Legal scholarship is not the same thing as legal advice on a specific situation. That said, replies like yours really drive home why I will be starting my own website for this scholarship. For some reason, as your reply illustrates, people who haven't studied the law can demonstrate a very hostile reaction to legal writing, and it gets tiring that my well-crafted essays provoke some frustrating replies here. I just haven't got around to setting up the website yet as I have been busy with other things in my life.
Cathy -
Wait, I thought you were from LexisNexis?
I think you're taking a lot of this out of context and/or missing the boat with regards to Vilgan's comments. It's clearly becoming personal to you (fair enough - I've given you flak too, see above) but at some point you've got to listen to the music.
No one here doubts your proficiency, or even your goals, namely to help the person in question. That much I hope is clear.
That being said, Vilgan has a point. Being a professional is as much about understanding the intricacies and jurisprudence, as it is about being able to communicate effectively to the layperson who you intend to help. Whether they've hired you or not, this talent and duty of care still exists.
Vilgan never once accused you of plagiarism, but it's interesting that you drew that line yourself.
He merely stated you copy/paste from statutes and decisions (which you do, all the time), but don't provide context to the discussion. This, I believe, is an accurate representation. I find your posts to be heavy of statutes, and light on application - this may be intentional, only you would know, really.
That being said - you need to consider the context of your comments. If you seek to create an expertise in legal scholarship (as you proclaim) then do it - but this expertise is ill-used on a blog where people are asking for what is effectively common-law advice, while knowing fully that the rigours and benefits of due process with a professional in an engagement are waved. People can find what you're speaking of in Google - they're looking for application.
In addition, what you claim to be academic and legal scholarship is, so far as the posts I've seen, completely fictitious. Academic and Legal Scholarship would mean you are taking on a certain position of the law, and discussing relevant case facts from common law, and interpretation from judges in relevant decisions to support or refute a position which you hold.
Before you get going on legal scholarship - I've written in numerous legal journals in Canada, so we can avoid the personal attack which you extended to Vilgar when you state
"From your reply, I imagine you've never read any technical legal scholarship before".
You, by definition, cannot do this while simultaneously exonerating your position through a disclaimer stating everything you say is general and inapplicable to specific circumstances. I have not once found a circumstance where you own an opinion - but I have found many posts where you cite (copy/paste) case law and statutes. This is not legal scholarship, by any definition.
In short - if you want to be a productive member of the community, then remember that your comments need to be productive to the members of the community. 99% of members don't know legal issues, the remaining 1% are probably split between tax, personal injury, corporate commercial, and real estate law, so your posts are entirely counter-productive to 99.75% of the MMM community at large. Bring some application of the law to the table, and you'll see a significant increase in people saying "Thanks Cathy!" as opposed to "??? Cathy".
This is all I'll put into this - I hope you start to tailor your comments to the questions asked appropriately, as I think you have something valuable to add to the MMM community.
Best,
CPA CB