Columnist Ruthe Deskin: Answering some taxing questions

Ruthe Deskin

Thursday, May 23, 2002 | 8:29 a.m.

How long should tax records be kept?

Each time I look at boxes and drawers stuffed with cancelled checks, receipts and copies of tax returns, I have asked myself that question.

Thanks to a tax report published by Bradshaw, Smith and Co., I have some answers.

"At a minimum," the company advises, "individuals should keep their personal tax records, including documents that support income and deductions for three years. The IRS generally has three years after the return was filed, (or if later, three years after the return was due) to assess tax for the year.

"If you are audited, you will need your records to substantiate your deductions."

But wait before you start tossing out papers. How about saving forever?

Bradshaw, Smith and Co. advises: "Going beyond the guidelines above and keeping all tax records for at least six years after filing is recommended because that is how long the IRS has to initiate an audit if income was substantially understated and no fraud exists.

"If you didn't file a tax return in a particular year because you earned little or no income, you should keep financial records for that year indefinitely. The IRS can audit you any time for a year for which you did not file a return. You may want to keep copies of returns permanently just in case the IRS says it didn't receive one of them."

The company advises, if you do decide to get rid of old financial records, go through them carefully.

All of which seems to add up to a conclusion that it's best to keep tax stuff for a long, long time.

Portland, Ore., claims to grow the nation's most beautiful roses.

Maybe so, but Las Vegas rose growers have every right to challenge that claim.

Each year a few sports writers bemoan the fact that the race for the NBA championship is too long and too boring.

For this fan it's just the opposite. I enjoy every minute, whether it's a slam dunk, fast break or battle of muscle under the basket.

I love this game.

Who knew what, and when?

The heated argument over the lapse in security prior to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York is like locking the barn door after the horse gets out.

No amount of finger pointing and hand wringing will turn back history. It is important that the investigations into the bungling of strategic information be carried on in an intelligent fashion with acrimonious political agendas set aside.

Some of us seniors can go back in history, when Japanese diplomats were visiting the nation's capital ostensibly to discuss maintaining peaceful relationships between the two countries.

That was in 1941. While the statesmen were negotiating in Washington, the Japanese military were plotting a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

After the Japanese surrender, accusations of lax security and failure to pass on incriminating evidence of a possible attack were rampant.

Did we learn from the Pearl Harbor experience?

Today we have similar lessons to learn, but the effectiveness of any investigation will be stifled unless it is done without political rancor.

archive