Took this picture this morning as I was walking my paper route. I walk just a bit past this on my first route. My second route is in a different area. So, for the police readers...here's our $3 million+ police station. Haven't counted recently, but we have about 17 full time police and the chief. They have hired 4 part time interim officers that will start work this summer sometime.
I called the Massachusetts Department of Revenue today. It was really bugging me so I decided to just get it over with. I always try to approach such things with a little good humor. Long distance phone call, of course. Andrew answered. Andrew says, "How can I help you?"
"I have a few questions about a 'notice to assess' that I received in the mail yesterday."
"Okay, what are the questions?"
"My first question is, do you have a sense of humor?"
"Because when I got this notice I thought you folks really must be joking!"
I explained that it would cost more to sent copies of all the documents that they wanted than I would get as my refund. He understood. He offered that I could send the original receipts and they would return them.
Hmmmm, he's suggesting I send the only records I have through the mail and trust first that they get there, then that they don't get lost, thrown out, or otherwise never to be returned to me. One word---No.
"Andrew, may I send a letter stating although I received this notice, that the costs to satisfy the request for further information outweigh the refund, therefore I will not be sending the information?" "Will they accept that with no further problems or penalties?"
Andrew replies, "That's fine, or you can just do nothing and you will not get the refund."
"Thanks, Andrew, enjoy the rest of your day."
Solved. I'm still not happy but that's a load of work and money saved. I still think it's wrong to deny the refund for no reason other than I was randomly selected and refuse to pay more to get less. Leave it to the government.......................
Mr. Tech P (note: He's also a Gloucester city councilor)
And the headline reads:
Court tells councilor: Pay piano owner $28K
-July 2002 customer contracts to have baby grand restored
-Pays deposit of $2450
-August 2002 customer asks for work to be put on hold due to house failing to sell
-August 2005 customer pays another $2000 and says resume work
-Completion and delivery set for November 2005
-Doesn't happen, lots of excuses
-Tech P evicted
-Court action taken by customer
-Tech P denies receiving court documents
-Tech P fails to appear in court
and now you have the rest of the story.
HAVE THEY ALL GONE MAD????????