Paying Someone Else's Deductible Expense

Discussion in 'Tax' started by Alan, Sep 28, 2011.

  1. Alan

    Alan Guest

    A question pops up every so often (10 years or less) asking whether the
    taxpayer can deduct the property taxes or mortgage interest that they
    paid for someone else. Typically, this involves parent(s) and child.
    The answer for property taxes is that you can't deduct property taxes
    you paid on real property unless you are obligated to pay them.
    The answer for mortgage interest, is that you can't deduct mortgage
    interest unless you are liable for the loan and the interest is not
    personal interest. I.e., the property is your main or vacation home and
    the property secures the loan.

    In reviewing some of the replies on these posts, there is usually a
    comment that the person who had the obligation to pay (typically the
    owner), may not take a deduction because that person did not make the
    payment.

    Now comes a tax court case from last December that says differently. The
    court took the position that substance trumped form. The case involved
    an adult child who was not a dependent who took a tax deduction on
    Schedule A for medical expenses and property taxes paid for by her
    mother. The medical expenses were paid directly to the providers and
    the property taxes were paid to the city. No gift tax return was
    prepared by the parent as the property taxes paid were less than the
    annual exclusion ($12K at the time) and the medical expenses paid were
    exempt from gift taxes because of the direct payment. The taxpayer
    argued that the court "should consider them to have in substance passed
    from Mrs. Field to petitioner and then to petitioner’s creditors;
    therefore petitioner should be entitled to deduct the payments." The IRS
    argued "that the form of the transaction should apply and that because
    the money was paid directly from Mrs. Field to petitioner’s creditors,
    petitioner may not claim the deductions."

    The court ruled in favor of the petitioner on both deductions.

    See Lang vs Comm'r, TC Memo 2010-286 for details.
    http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/La5ng.TCM.WPD.pdf

    --
    Alan
    http://taxtopics.net

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Alan, Sep 28, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alan <> wrote:

    > Now comes a tax court case from last December that says
    > differently. The court took the position that substance trumped
    > form. The case involved an adult child who was not a dependent
    > who took a tax deduction on Schedule A for medical expenses and
    > property taxes paid for by her mother. The medical expenses
    > were paid directly to the providers and the property taxes were
    > paid to the city. No gift tax return was prepared by the parent
    > as the property taxes paid were less than the annual exclusion
    > ($12K at the time) and the medical expenses paid were exempt
    > from gift taxes because of the direct payment. The taxpayer
    > argued that the court "should consider them to have in substance
    > passed from Mrs. Field to petitioner and then to petitioner's
    > creditors; therefore petitioner should be entitled to deduct the
    > payments." The IRS argued "that the form of the transaction
    > should apply and that because the money was paid directly from
    > Mrs. Field to petitioner's creditors, petitioner may not claim
    > the deductions."


    The issue in the past was whether the person paying the property tax
    or mortgage interest for someone else could take the deduction.
    That's not the issue in the case you are referring to.

    In your case it's the opposite situation. Someone paid the
    deductible bill for someone else, and the person whose bill it was
    took the deduction. It was a legitimate gift. I don't see a problem
    with it, since the person paying the bill would not be able to deduct
    it.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Stuart A. Bronstein, Sep 29, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alan

    Mark Bole Guest

    On 2011/09/28 14:50, Alan wrote:


    > In reviewing some of the replies on these posts, there is usually a
    > comment that the person who had the obligation to pay (typically the
    > owner), may not take a deduction because that person did not make the
    > payment.
    >


    This is the main topic of your post, which Stu is further clarifying in
    his initial reply.


    --

    Mark Bole
    EA in CA
    makbo at pacbell dot net

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Mark Bole, Sep 29, 2011
    #3
  4. Alan

    mackwaa

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    45
    Firstly, in the original post, it's crazy that the tax system/commissioner would waste money trying to argue this point...

    The second point is more interesting. Ignoring gifting and interest on loans for a sec, there are two options. Either the payer is allowed to claim the payment as a deducible expense but the petitioner would also have to declare this as revenue. Or the payer is not allowed to claim the payment. Either option would result in the same amount of tax paid unless they are on a different marginal tax rate ;)
     
    mackwaa, Sep 29, 2011
    #4
  5. Alan

    Alan Guest

    On 9/28/11 7:15 PM, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
    > Alan<> wrote:
    >
    >> Now comes a tax court case from last December that says
    >> differently. The court took the position that substance trumped
    >> form. The case involved an adult child who was not a dependent
    >> who took a tax deduction on Schedule A for medical expenses and
    >> property taxes paid for by her mother. The medical expenses
    >> were paid directly to the providers and the property taxes were
    >> paid to the city. No gift tax return was prepared by the parent
    >> as the property taxes paid were less than the annual exclusion
    >> ($12K at the time) and the medical expenses paid were exempt
    >> from gift taxes because of the direct payment. The taxpayer
    >> argued that the court "should consider them to have in substance
    >> passed from Mrs. Field to petitioner and then to petitioner's
    >> creditors; therefore petitioner should be entitled to deduct the
    >> payments." The IRS argued "that the form of the transaction
    >> should apply and that because the money was paid directly from
    >> Mrs. Field to petitioner's creditors, petitioner may not claim
    >> the deductions."

    >
    > The issue in the past was whether the person paying the property tax
    > or mortgage interest for someone else could take the deduction.
    > That's not the issue in the case you are referring to.
    >
    > In your case it's the opposite situation. Someone paid the
    > deductible bill for someone else, and the person whose bill it was
    > took the deduction. It was a legitimate gift. I don't see a problem
    > with it, since the person paying the bill would not be able to deduct
    > it.
    >

    As Mark pointed out, the main point of the post is the ability of a
    taxpayer who is not making the payment to take the deduction. This is
    the first court decision, that I am aware of, that says it is allowable
    under the right set of circumstances. Most of the literature on this
    issue always makes the point that to take a deduction, you have to be
    the one who actually makes the payment. E.g., under tests to deduct a
    tax, the IRS says:

    "If you are a cash basis taxpayer, you can deduct only those taxes you
    actually paid during your tax year. If you pay your taxes by check, the
    day you mail or deliver the check is the date of payment, provided the
    check is honored by the financial institution. If you use a pay-by-phone
    account (such as a credit card or electronic funds withdrawal), the date
    reported on the statement of the financial institution showing when
    payment was made is the date of payment."

    And under Medical deductions the IRS says:
    "You can include only the medical and dental expenses you paid this
    year, regardless of when the services were provided. If you pay medical
    expenses by check, the day you mail or deliver the check generally is
    the date of payment. If you use a “pay-by-phone” or “online” account to
    pay your medical expenses, the date reported on the statement of the
    financial institution showing when payment was made is the date of
    payment. If you use a credit card, include medical expenses you charge
    to your credit card in the year the charge is made, not when you
    actually pay the amount charged."

    Lastly, the decision reiterates that it is the substance of the
    transaction and not the form that matters.

    --
    Alan
    http://taxtopics.net

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Alan, Sep 29, 2011
    #5
  6. Alan

    Guest

    On Sep 28, 2:50 pm, Alan <> wrote:

    > A question pops up every so often (10 years or less) asking whether the
    > taxpayer can deduct the property taxes or mortgage interest that they
    > paid for someone else.  Typically, this involves parent(s) and child.
    > The answer for property taxes is that you can't deduct property taxes
    > you paid on real property unless you are obligated to pay them.
    > The answer for mortgage interest, is that you can't deduct mortgage
    > interest unless you are liable for the loan and the interest is not
    > personal interest. I.e., the property is your main or vacation home and
    > the property secures the loan.
    >
    > In reviewing some of the replies on these posts, there is usually a
    > comment that the person who had the obligation to pay (typically the
    > owner), may not take a deduction because that person did not make the
    > payment.


    Does this mean that no-one gets to take the deduction -- not the owner
    because they didn't pay it, not the parent who actually paid the bill
    because they were not legally obligated to pay it?

    > Now comes a tax court case from last December that says differently. The
    > court took the position that substance trumped form. The case involved
    > an adult child who was not a dependent who took a tax deduction on
    > Schedule A for medical expenses and property taxes paid for by her
    > mother.  The medical expenses were paid directly to the providers and
    > the property taxes were paid to the city. No gift tax return was
    > prepared by the parent as the property taxes paid were less than the
    > annual exclusion ($12K at the time) and the medical expenses paid were
    > exempt from gift taxes because of the direct payment. The taxpayer
    > argued that the court "should consider them to have in substance passed
    > from Mrs. Field to petitioner and then to petitioner’s creditors;
    > therefore petitioner should be entitled to deduct the payments." The IRS
    > argued "that the form of the transaction should apply and that because
    > the money was paid directly from Mrs. Field to petitioner’s creditors,
    > petitioner may not claim the deductions."
    >
    > The court ruled in favor of the petitioner on both deductions.


    If the court allows the medical deduction to be taken by the taxpayer,
    it's as if the parent gave the taxpayer the gift and the taxpayer paid
    it, in which case the parent must file a gift tax return if the
    property tax + medical expenses were more than the 12k threshold.

    But if the parent is not paying gift tax on the medical expenses, then
    they only the parent can take the medical deduction. Their child can
    be their dependent for the medical expense deduction, but not the
    personal exemption. This is what seems logical to me.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    , Sep 29, 2011
    #6
  7. Alan

    Bill Brown Guest

    On Sep 29, 2:30 pm, "" <removeps-
    > wrote:


    >
    > If the court allows the medical deduction to be taken by the taxpayer,
    > it's as if the parent gave the taxpayer the gift and the taxpayer paid
    > it, in which case the parent must file a gift tax return if the
    > property tax + medical expenses were more than the 12k threshold.
    >


    Medical costs of another person paid by the taxpayer directly to the
    provider are NOT gifts for federal gift tax purposes.

    > But if the parent is not paying gift tax on the medical expenses, then
    > they only the parent can take the medical deduction.  Their child can
    > be their dependent for the medical expense deduction, but not the
    > personal exemption.  This is what seems logical to me.


    It may seem logical to you but the Tax Court did not rule that way.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Bill Brown, Sep 29, 2011
    #7
  8. Alan

    Alan Guest

    On 9/29/11 12:30 PM, wrote:
    >
    > If the court allows the medical deduction to be taken by the taxpayer,
    > it's as if the parent gave the taxpayer the gift and the taxpayer paid
    > it,

    Exactly what the court said. Substance over form.


    in which case the parent must file a gift tax return if the
    > property tax + medical expenses were more than the 12k threshold.
    >

    Repeating what Bill Brown said.... exempt from Gift tax rules as
    payments were made directly to the medical providers.


    > But if the parent is not paying gift tax on the medical expenses, then
    > they only the parent can take the medical deduction. Their child can
    > be their dependent for the medical expense deduction, but not the
    > personal exemption. This is what seems logical to me.
    >


    In this instance the child is not a dependent for the exemption and no
    mention was made as to whether the child was a dependent for medical
    expense purposes as the parent was not going to take a deduction.
    Lastly, from the decision:
    "Although Mrs. Field and petitioner would not be subject to the gift
    tax, the income tax treatment in this context is not controlled by the
    gift tax consequence. See Pierre v. Commissioner, 133 T.C. 24, 35 (2009)."


    --
    Alan
    http://taxtopics.net

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Alan, Sep 29, 2011
    #8
  9. Alan

    D. Stussy Guest

    "Bill Brown" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sep 29, 2:30 pm, "" <removeps-
    > > wrote:
    > > If the court allows the medical deduction to be taken by the taxpayer,
    > > it's as if the parent gave the taxpayer the gift and the taxpayer paid
    > > it, in which case the parent must file a gift tax return if the
    > > property tax + medical expenses were more than the 12k threshold.
    > >

    >
    > Medical costs of another person paid by the taxpayer directly to the
    > provider are NOT gifts for federal gift tax purposes.
    >
    > > But if the parent is not paying gift tax on the medical expenses, then
    > > they only the parent can take the medical deduction. Their child can
    > > be their dependent for the medical expense deduction, but not the
    > > personal exemption. This is what seems logical to me.

    >
    > It may seem logical to you but the Tax Court did not rule that way.


    I expect that the IRS will not acquiesce to this situation.
    1) The donor gave a gift. No deduction.
    2) The recipient was relieved of a liability. No deduction*, but also no
    income as gifts are not taxable to the recipient.

    No deduction per the income tax side of the law, except due to a quirk in
    gift tax law, the amount of the gift reportable is actually under the
    threshold for requiring a Form 709. Upon reading the decision, it appears
    such had a bearing on the outcome. That quirk deemed the payment as
    relayed through the recipient even though in form it was paid directly to
    the third-party.

    Had a form 709 been required, the outcome might have been diferent.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    D. Stussy, Sep 29, 2011
    #9
  10. Alan

    Alan Guest

    On 9/29/11 3:42 PM, D. Stussy wrote:
    >
    > I expect that the IRS will not acquiesce to this situation.
    > 1) The donor gave a gift. No deduction.
    > 2) The recipient was relieved of a liability. No deduction*, but also no
    > income as gifts are not taxable to the recipient.
    >
    > No deduction per the income tax side of the law, except due to a quirk in
    > gift tax law, the amount of the gift reportable is actually under the
    > threshold for requiring a Form 709. Upon reading the decision, it appears
    > such had a bearing on the outcome. That quirk deemed the payment as
    > relayed through the recipient even though in form it was paid directly to
    > the third-party.
    >
    > Had a form 709 been required, the outcome might have been diferent.
    >

    That last statement is not that clear to me. Had the mother actually
    gifted the amount to her child rather than paying the bills directly, a
    Form 709 would have been required by the mother and the child could take
    the deduction after spending the funds on medical expenses. The outcome
    to the child, is the same.

    --
    Alan
    http://taxtopics.net

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Alan, Sep 29, 2011
    #10
  11. Alan

    NadCixelsyd Guest

    >
    > The answer for property taxes is that you can't deduct property taxes
    > you paid on real property unless you are obligated to pay them.
    >

    "the following taxes shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable
    year within which paid or accrued: (1) State and local, and foreign,
    real property taxes."

    I find nothing in the statute that requires the taxpayer to have the
    obligation to pay the real property taxes.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    NadCixelsyd, Oct 1, 2011
    #11
  12. Alan

    Alan Guest

    On 10/1/11 12:10 PM, NadCixelsyd wrote:
    >>
    >> The answer for property taxes is that you can't deduct property taxes
    >> you paid on real property unless you are obligated to pay them.
    >>

    > "the following taxes shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable
    > year within which paid or accrued: (1) State and local, and foreign,
    > real property taxes."
    >
    > I find nothing in the statute that requires the taxpayer to have the
    > obligation to pay the real property taxes.
    >

    I believe Reg 1.164-3(b) is where you can find the answer. The tax must
    be imposed on someone who has an interest in the property.

    --
    Alan
    http://taxtopics.net

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Alan, Oct 1, 2011
    #12
  13. Alan

    Guest

    On Sep 29, 12:00 pm, Bill Brown <> wrote:

    > > If the court allows the medical deduction to be taken by the taxpayer,
    > > it's as if the parent gave the taxpayer the gift and the taxpayer paid
    > > it, in which case the parent must file a gift tax return if the
    > > property tax + medical expenses were more than the 12k threshold.

    >
    > Medical costs of another person paid by the taxpayer directly to the
    > provider are NOT gifts for federal gift tax purposes.
    >
    > > But if the parent is not paying gift tax on the medical expenses, then
    > > they only the parent can take the medical deduction.  Their child can
    > > be their dependent for the medical expense deduction, but not the
    > > personal exemption.  This is what seems logical to me.

    >
    > It may seem logical to you but the Tax Court did not rule that way.


    Maybe so, but it looks like double dipping. The medical expense paid
    by a third person is both free from the gift tax as well as allowable
    for a deduction.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    , Oct 2, 2011
    #13
  14. Alan

    Bill Brown Guest

    On Oct 2, 6:06 pm, "" <removeps-
    > wrote:

    > Maybe so, but it looks like double dipping.  The medical expense paid
    > by a third person is both free from the gift tax as well as allowable
    > for a deduction.
    >


    If the donor gave cash to the donee and the donee wrote a check to the
    doctor would you call that double dipping? In substance there is no
    difference between the two ways of having the donor pay the donee's
    medical expenses.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Bill Brown, Oct 3, 2011
    #14
  15. Alan

    Guest

    On Oct 3, 9:21 am, Bill Brown <> wrote:

    > > Maybe so, but it looks like double dipping. The medical expense paid
    > > by a third person is both free from the gift tax as well as allowable
    > > for a deduction.

    >
    > If the donor gave cash to the donee and the donee wrote a check to the
    > doctor would you call that double dipping? In substance there is no
    > difference between the two ways of having the donor pay the donee's
    > medical expenses.


    In your example above, the donor would be liable for gift tax, but the
    the donee who paid the bills would get the deduction. In the original
    post, the donor gets to pay no gift tax, and the donee gets to take a
    deduction. But I guess this is what the law says, so I'm fine with
    that, was just saying it sounds illogical to me.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    , Oct 3, 2011
    #15
  16. Alan

    Seth Guest

    In article <>,
    Bill Brown <> wrote:
    >On Oct 2, 6:06 pm, "" <removeps-
    >> wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe so, but it looks like double dipping.  The medical expense paid
    >> by a third person is both free from the gift tax as well as allowable
    >> for a deduction.

    >
    >If the donor gave cash to the donee


    Then there would exist the issue of gift tax.

    > and the donee wrote a check to the doctor would you call that double
    >dipping? In substance there is no difference between the two ways of
    >having the donor pay the donee's medical expenses.


    The gift tax is the difference.

    Seth

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
     
    Seth, Oct 3, 2011
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jack Hamilton
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    496
    Harlan Lunsford
    Jan 12, 2004
  2. Syd Bee

    Signing IS forms on behalf of someone else

    Syd Bee, Sep 12, 2005, in forum: UK Tax Credits and Benefits
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    357
  3. Wong

    Paying Deep, Paying Wide, Paying YOU!

    Wong, Feb 16, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Money UK
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    361
  4. dave
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    3,665
    Fergus O'Rourke
    Aug 30, 2005
  5. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,586
    Miss L. Toe
    Oct 23, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page