Yes Sir I concur totally with your opinion.
As you already know I have been aware since 1994 of David Myrland's
analysis of Title 26, the supporting regulations, the supporting court decisions,
the IRS Manual 17 under "Cost Basis" and in 1998 the (RRA98).
I have been a believer the general concept of the message for
20+ years.
David Mryland is a very competent writer, very knowledgeable concerning statute
& regulations, more so than anyone else that I'm aware of, or I would be studying
under [them].
The last couple of years I have spent learning the finite detail of how everything
fits conveniently together like a complex jigsaw puzzle. The basic problem is that
these other people are not so much interested in actually disusing
logically David
analysis they in my opinion more interested in disputing David's work than learning
it, after all they have had decades to research the validity of it and have not done so
to this day.
So what benefit would there be for David to under go a debate where one side knows
not the information and will just try a win through language domination with out facts.
Arguing their ideas and not investigating the law.
I don't feel like I'm unintelligent but I am far far behind David in a broad comprehension
of the law and how best to present it, but if I could grasp on to this 20 years ago why, I ask
you, did these guys
not, it's a mystery to me?
Bob
That guy was/is an idiot. I had to get off the call, I just couldn’t stand him another minute. Seems like more & more of these know-it-alls are getting
on the calls and sucking up valuable time/energy with their intellect (of lack of…). They just will NOT listen! Amazing, just amazing…
Regards,
Rick
I agree with you Chappy. Seems every time two people with different approaches to the same issue get together on the same stage at the same time only get nowhere and the audience confused when it's all over.
People that suggest to get two camps together like Dave and Pete only want to see if a fight or major argument breaks out and that's all. Leaving the
audience confused and debased. And someone gets their jollies off. Like some go to NASCAR to see if a wreck happens.
Neither will we see two opposing football team playbook writers get together on the same stage and discuss each ones approach to football strategy so that the audience believes that BOTH teams will win even though each team has their own playbook strategy.
The same holds true in tax strategy. We are still left to do our research and due diligence and pick the best way because we cannot expect a win using two strategies at the same time.
If two want to get together, they should reach out to each other on their own like Becraft's show and McDonald's letter.
I'll continue to stay in Dave's camp.
My 0.02.
Mark
