Posted by Maureen Lazar on 2/4/08 5:13pm
Msg #234021

California Notary and tax question

Alright if per say I do a loan signing at150.00 there are 2 borrowers. I notarize 6 pages, that is 120 worth of notary money. The other 30 is travel service. Do I get to claim the other 120.00 as exempt or is it actually only 60.00 that is tax exempt? Please help Thanks, Maureen

Reply by Philip Johnson on 2/4/08 5:22pm
Msg #234023

You may want to look at this link to get what the IRS says

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p334/ch10.html

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 2/4/08 5:24pm
Msg #234024

It's not pages you notarize, its signatures. The CA handbooks allows us to charge $10 per notarized signature. If there are two signatures to notarize on a page, then that is $20 for that page. If it is one signature on the page, then that is $10.

And it's not exempt from income tax. It is exempt from self-employment tax. Two different taxes. If you are unsure what that means, then see a tax professional .....

Reply by Maureen Lazar on 2/4/08 5:37pm
Msg #234026

I have an appointment set for this week. I wanted to be more prepared. I understand that it is not pages I notarize and that it is signatures. I wanted to see my tax preparer with all my ducks in a row.

Reply by Barbara A Demonte on 2/4/08 8:24pm
Msg #234041

If your paying a tax professional then let him do his job,

ask him the questions you are asking us, he's the professional and should have the answers for you. Otherwise, why are you paying someone to do your taxes instead of doing them yourself.

Reply by christiSocal on 2/4/08 9:17pm
Msg #234046

Basically I agree, but

There do seem to be a lot of tax professionals who do not know about the tax break for notaries. (Self employment taxes ONLY...) It is a good thing for us to be aware of.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/4/08 7:32pm
Msg #234034

To quote the eminent philospher Popeye...

"I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more!"

This is not directed at you personally, Maureen, but it's the third time in the past week or so I've seen the phrase misused here, so I just have to vent a little....

It's "per se", not "per say", and it doesn't mean "for instance". It's Latin, and roughly translates to "by itself". So saying something like "It's not illegal to do that per se" would be correct; on the other hand, "If per se I do a loan signing" would be incorrect.

Again, not meant as a personal criticism - a lot of people make the same mistake. I had a boss who used it incorrectly all the time, even in meetings with senior executives, and I cringed every time he said it.

And don't get me started on the correct pronunciation of "forte", as in "signing loan documents is my forte"...

Reply by Linda Juenger on 2/4/08 9:21pm
Msg #234048

Popeye's hometown is an hour from me Chester, IL n/m

Reply by Philip Johnson on 2/4/08 9:28pm
Msg #234050

Careful Maureen he's "Doli capax" :) n/m

Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/4/08 9:35pm
Msg #234052

Re: Careful Maureen he's "Doli capax" :)

Tell me how I'm wrong (and yes, I know what "doli capax" means....)

Reply by Susan Fischer on 2/5/08 1:14am
Msg #234060

Look out, Philip's got foot in mouth disease. Tsk Tsk.

You really should invest in a dictionary before you go tossing around legal terms of art.

After all, 'Dolus circuitu non purgatur...'

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/5/08 9:09am
Msg #234067

okay...what am I missing? Phillip used :) in his post

...so when he used "doli capax" doesn't that mean he was making a joke with latin words?

Is something sinister going on that I am not picking up on?

Reply by jba/fl on 2/5/08 10:11am
Msg #234072

Re: Look out, Philip's got foot in mouth disease. Tsk Tsk.

"legal terms of art."

Art?

I think that Philip understands, Mike does not and Susan just confused the issue thereby confusing Brenda and I, though Popeye was key to it all

...is art an abbreviation or are you referring to legal art(s)? Legaleze as pertains to art (Popeye)

Reply by Susan Fischer on 2/5/08 12:42pm
Msg #234101

Re: Look out, Philip's got foot in mouth disease. Tsk Tsk.

'Term of art;' a word or phrase; expression; particularly one which possesses a fixed or known meaning in some science, art, or profession.

Here, in law, 'Doli capax' refers to the capability of malice or criminal intention. Dolus = malicious fraud.

So, smiley notwithstanding, Philip's comment pointedly suggests that Mike is not to be trusted, and that he's trying to maliciously mislead the poster which, Mike understood perfectly, hence his reply.

Reply by Philip Johnson on 2/5/08 1:35pm
Msg #234113

Good night Susan.

I was poking fun at his correction of "per say" rather than "per se". I don't know Mike from anyone and for you to state what my intentions were is a big step. I do appreciate though the fact that you think that I am smart enough to have remembered something from 30 years ago to use in a back handed way in a dead language.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 2/5/08 1:55pm
Msg #234119

Philip, I was responding to Julie's post. I understand your

joke now- guess it was just lost in the 'tranlation.'

Reply by Gary_CA on 2/5/08 2:32pm
Msg #234128

traductore tratere n/m

Reply by jba/fl on 2/5/08 2:28pm
Msg #234126

Re: Look out, Philip's got foot in mouth disease. Tsk Tsk.

"Here, in law, 'Doli capax' refers to the capability of malice or criminal intention. Dolus = malicious fraud."
-------------
doli capax - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) :

DOLI CAPAX. Capable of deceit, mischief, having knowledge of right and
wrong. See Discretion; Criminal law, 2.
--------------
in further discussions, relates to age of majority, tending to not apply until sometime between ages 10-14 yr.,{hence, (my reference) Popeye for kids, mischievious.}

DOLOS (or Dolus) was the spirit (daimon) of trickery, cunning deception, craftiness, treachery and guile. He was an apprentice of the crafty Titan Prometheus and a companion of the Pseudologoi (Lies). His female counterpart was Apate, the spirit of fraud and deception.


I did not think Philip's comment was to suggest anything other than mischieveousness; saw nothing malicious in P's post either. Mike's reply went for that 'wrong' which is only one portion of the definition and not even the most commonly used portion.

As Philips also suggested, perhaps we should continue in one of today's languages, perferably English or Spanglish at worst.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 2/5/08 5:27pm
Msg #234154

Re: Look out, Philip's got foot in mouth disease. Tsk Tsk.

Check out Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1990) p483.

Just because *your* perception was different than Mikes, doesn't negate Mike's perception. Or mine, or anyone's.

You asked for clarification for 'term of art,' I submitted mine. You don't agree. I understand your point, I just don't share it.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/5/08 8:40pm
Msg #234190

The whole point of the post was that

people are not only misusing the phrase, but spelling it incorrectly as well. I'm not sure how this devolved into an argument about Latin; it started as a post about correct English. I may have misunderstood Philip's remark, but all I did was ask him to tell me what it was he thought I had wrong - no challenge, no confrontation, and if it came across that way I apologize.

Thank you Susan for stepping up, and thank you Philip for defusing the situation by explaining what you meant. Everyone else - please understand what words mean (and how they're spelled) before you use them...

Reply by Philip Johnson on 2/5/08 10:54am
Msg #234079

Bonus Dominus, mea culpa. No harm intended

just trying to remember my 4 years of HS Latin. I'll try to stick to the mother tongue of our country in the future, Spanish. Oops English.