Thaimo

I don't blame you. Please let us know how it goes for you.

Yes, that is correct. I'm sorry if I was not clear about that. The point I am trying to make is that he had no problem at all about getting another retirement visa after turning in his work permit. He had approval for a new retirement visa within minutes at the Pattaya immigration office. He did not have to leave the country or suffer any other inconveniences.

I'm surprised to see that. For what it's worth, a friend of mine entered Thailand, got his retirement visa, and then got a teaching job. The school arranged his work permit and helped him through the visa change. After several months things went wrong and he left the job. I personally took him to the work permit office in Chonburi to turn in his work permit. After that, he had no problem at all getting another retirement visa at the Pattaya immigration office. The problem is that one office tells people one thing and another tells people something different. That leaves you stuck with trying to decide which office is giving the accurate information. If you really want to work, then since wherever you checked is telling you something entirely different from what I witnessed with my own eyes, then the only alternative I can think of would be to consult a good Thai attorney. I'm with you, though. If you come to Thailand to retire, then retire. If one is financially forced to work in Thailand, then you really were not ready for retirement. If one wants to work merely to have something to do, then I think it is best to find something to occupy time that does not require a work permit or visa change. I would not recommend trying to work without a definite, reliable answer to what happens regarding the retirement visa if you either choose to stop working or are terminated. There is no way I would recommend doing things on an "I hope it will all work out" basis. You need answers, answers you can be certain are reliable. Finding those kinds of answers is the true challenge.

This is the part I have the most difficulty trying to understand. The fact that people disagree with the court decisions means it's ok to launch protests that clearly are designed to disrupt the country and force the government out? If new elections do happen, what if the protesters, or those who take the position opposing the protesters, don't like the election results? What happens then? More protests? The way I see it, the proper way to handle this would be to launch political campaigns and try to win the next set of elections rather than what has been going on.

So many predictions of what will happen with the value of the baht have been published, with so few ever turning out to be right, you might as well place all the predictions into a bucket, blindfold yourself, and just pull one out. From what I understand, the baht is as strong as it is due to enormous amounts of investment money pouring in from Japan. The Japanese must be speculating that the political turmoil will not hurt their investments. If that is correct, if the day ever comes when they start pulling out massive amounts, then the value of the baht will go into a tailspin. All we can do is wait and see.

Those are all good offers. If only the service stations would start giving out free steak knives again!

Myanmar's ruler warns against external interference Myanmar's ruler warns against external interference - CNN.com March 27, 2010 - Naypyitaw, Myanmar (CNN) -- Myanmar's junta chief spoke Saturday of pending political and economic change even as an ostentatious parade served as a reminder of the isolated nation's military might. In his annual Armed Forces Day national speech, Senior Gen. Than Shwe signaled that transition would soon be under way though he gave no date for upcoming national elections, the first such vote in two decades. "Preparations are being made to be ready in every aspect for a gentle transition to democracy and market oriented economic systems," Than Shwe said. "Failure to make a systemic step-by-step transition from one system to another may endanger the nation and the people." Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has been under military rule since 1962. The Armed Forces Day parade -- commemorating the start of the Burmese army's resistance to Japanese occupation in 1945 -- is designed to showcase military power. Saturday's parade could be the last for the military junta, though critics believe that Myanmar's announced elections are intended only to create a facade of democracy. The so-called Group of Friends on Myanmar, an informal collection of 14 countries and the European Union, are unhappy with the junta's lack of progress toward establishing a fair and transparent election process. In his speech, Than Shwe took a jab at nations like the United States, which has said that diplomatic ties between the two nations could improve if Myanmar took tangible steps toward democracy. "During the transition to an unfamiliar system, countries with greater experience usually interfere and take advantage for their own interest," he said. "For this reason, it is an absolute necessity to avoid relying on external powers." The upcoming vote will be the first since 1990, when opposition candidate Aung San Suu Kyi won by a landslide. The junta refused to recognize her party's victory. Suu Kyi, the iconic face for democracy in Myanmar, has been kept under detention for 14 of the past 20 years. Earlier this month, the junta announced that Suu Kyi would be barred from participating in this year's election. The Political Parties Registration Law, announced in state-run newspapers, excludes electoral participation by any member of a political party who has been convicted in court.

It is about a 3 hour drive from U-Tapao to Suvarnabhumi, give or take a half hour or so. I could see commuter aircraft doing well at U-Tapao for destinations within Thailand and maybe neighboring countries. Bangkok Airways has been successful there, virtually without competition. I believe there are flights to and from Russia available there as well. It would be very interesting to see what would happen if another airline starts competing with Bangkok airways out of U-Tapao. I know a direct rapid rail system between Pattaya and Suvarnabhumi has been discussed, but as far as I know nothing ever came of it. If something like that is ever put in place it will probably be years before it's ready.

US Embassy to visit Pattaya Wed March 24th... Dear Pattaya Area American Citizens, The Consular Section of the American Embassy in Bangkok is pleased to inform you of a consular outreach visit to Pattaya on March 24, 2010. Please come if you can! Consular staff will be available to provide services at the following location (please note that the time is different than at previous outreaches): Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM at the Dusit Thani Pattaya, at 240/2 Pattaya Beach Road, Pattaya City, Chonburi, 20150, Thailand. Telephone: 03-842-5611. The following consular services will be available during our outreach visits: * Passport renewal applications ($75.00 or Baht 2550 for adult passports, and $85 or Baht 2890 for a child’s passport) * Notarial Services and Certified Copies ($30.00 or Baht 1020). This includes income affidavits for retirees in Thailand. * Social security, VA, or other federal benefits question will be limited, but we will try to provide forms and answers (Please bring exact change!) NOTE: We cannot process extra visa pages during our outreach trips. We can accept applications, but the passports will have to be brought back to the Embassy for final processing the next day. The passports will then have to be picked up in person (or by a friend upon presentation of a letter of authorization signed by the applicant) at the Embassy. We regret any inconvenience caused by this. Additionally, Consular Reports of Birth cannot be processed during consular outreach trips. If you have any questions, please email acsbkk@state.gov or call the American Citizen Services Unit at 02-205-4049. We look forward to seeing you in Pattaya on Wednesday, March 24, 2010. Sincerely, American Citizen Services U.S. Embassy Bangkok, Thailand

I can't remember the actual cost. It has been several years. I think it was around 1000 baht or so.

Obtaining a passport is neither difficult nor very expensive for Thais. Their problems begin after they have the passport. It is very difficult, sometimes virtually impossible, for Thais to obtain visas to visit various countries. Obtaining a visa to visit the USA is especially difficult for Thais.

That's tellin' 'em!

Their Full Moon parties are famous in Thailand. Have you experienced any there? If yes, what can you tell us?

Am I missing something? If the immigration office isn't getting farang, then who are they getting?

You have asked this same question on several threads. It is a question none of us can answer because much of whether you will be approved depends on the type of job and who is offering it. A Type-B visa is a business visa. In most cases that visa is only necessary if you are coming to Thailand to establish a business or as a representative of a company that has already established business ties with Thailand. I have never heard of a Type-B visa being required in order to obtain a work permit. Also, usually it is the employer who needs to start the process of getting a work permit for you. You don't just walk into an immigration office and announce that you have been offered a job. The employer takes the first steps and often can take care of the whole process for you. Your potential employer needs to be the first one to discuss this with immigration, although you certainly can go with him. If immigration is going to approve you, most likely they will take care of the visa formalities without you having to leave the country. However, if the immigration office you go to rejects you, as I said in another thread, try going to another immigration office. Often you will get a different answer.

What you say makes sense, but the fact is that tourists are still coming to Thailand in great numbers despite the problems.

Also, if you get rejected at one immigration office, try another before heading off to Singapore. Some of these offices have a tendency to make up their own rules.

I think the best of all, much better than The Great American Rib Company and Cafe New Orleans in Pattaya is Cherry's (directly across the street from the X-zyte disco on Third Road). Every Friday they have an all-u-can-eat ribs special, which includes their salad bar, the ribs, cottage fries, corn on the cob, and dessert. These are the best ribs I've had in Thailand. I think they may be the best ribs I've had anywhere, even in the USA. And all you can eat! 270 baht plus beverage and tip. The whole thing, including the tip, comes out to 320 baht for me. I don't know how anyone can beat that. Try it some time.

I wish the guy who posted that article had cited his source. He didn't, so now I don't know where he got it from. I suppose those of you applying for visas can easily call your nearest Thai embassy or consulate to make sure. I don't doubt the veracity of the post, but assuming it is accurate I'm surprised not to spot similar articles elsewhere all over the Thailand tourism media.

The exchange rates usually fluctuate as the day progresses. The rates can change as often as hourly. Sometimes it's a question of sheer luck, doing your transactions at just the right moment. For those of you who use debit cards at an ATM, Aeon still does not charge that 150 baht fee, although you can only do withdrawals in multiples of 1000 baht. I have heard that some Bank of Ayudhya ATMs don't charge the fee and some do. I don't understand that, but nevertheless that's what people are telling me. A friend of mine is currently in the Philippines. Only yesterday he sent me an Email and said that when he uses his debit card at ATMs in the Philippines, there is no ATM fee at all, only whatever his bank in the USA charges for foreign transactions.

I have neither heard this nor seen anything about it in the media. Where did you hear this?

Shrimp and prawns are different genus and species. Prawns are usually larger than shrimp and are more species of them are found in freshwater than shrimp. As far as eating characteristics go they taste the same to me. If someone gave me a plate of prawns and a plate of shrimp I wouldn't know the difference.

This story is from The Nation newspaper online http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/02/26/politics/Thaksin-guilty-Bt46-bn-seized-Bt30-bn-returned-30123503.html Red Siam rally site at Sanam Luang sees sparse crowds following last night rally. Organisers ask protesters to reassemble in the afternoon to monitor the verdict. Security measures stepped up at Parliament, Government House, Si Sao Thewes residence of chief royal adviser General Prem Tinsulannonda, Chan Song La residence of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra's family and the stock market. 7.30 am: Nine Supreme Court judges arrive in a bullet-proof car. Tight security at court building, 8.30 am: People's Channel, pro-Thaksin satellite broadcasting, airs a taped Thaksin speech urging his supporters not to assemble at the court building. Thaksin said he would monitor the live broadcast of the verdict in Dubai and that none of his family members would attend the verdict session. In his speech and his Twitter message, Thaksin insists on his innocence, arguing he is not a cheater and that his wealth has been honestly earned and not ill-gotten gains. 9.30 am: Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thuagsuban says the situation is stable. He pledges to safeguard the judges in doing their job. He ensures the public that the government has the contingency plan to deal with any disturbances. He also allays the concern for a coup, saying he guarantees there will be no military intervention. 9.10 am: Nine Supreme Court judges seen entering their private chamber to debate the Bt76 billion asset seizure case. The judges are expected to read out their individual opinions before forming the judicial decision. Wireless signals are jammed to prevent leaks. By 10.00 am: Democrats and Pheu Thai MPs start arriving at their respective parties to monitor the situation. Red shirts in Udon Thani congregate at a pro-Thaksin radio station to keep tap on the verdict. Red shirts in Chiang Mai assemble at an empty lot in front of Waroros Grand Palace Hotel. 11.30 am: Thaksin may phone in via a video link to his Pheu Thai supporters while the verdict is being read this afternoon, Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit says. The video link will take place at Phue Thai headquarters on Rama IV Road. The main opposition party has set up two large projectors for live broadcast of the verdict. Party supporters are expected to turn out in full force. Key figures in the pro-Thaksin camp, including Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, Somchai Wongsawat, Yaowapha Wongsawat, Pongthep Thepkanchana, Chaturon Chaisang, Chusak Sirinil and Sukhumpong Ngonkham are scheduled to arrive at the party headquarters before the verdict session at 1.30 pm. After the judges read out the verdict, the Pheu Thai legal team will issue a statement. Thaksin is scheduled to give an interview reacting to his verdict via the video link. Web-based TV journalist Tuangporn Asvavilai is in Dubai to act as his interviewer. 11.45 am: Red Siam rally organiser Surachai Danwattananusorn says protesters would not move to the Supreme Court compound regardless of the outcome of the verdict. The Red Siam rally site is at Sanam Luang, Surachai says, denying the linkage to the verdict on the asset seizure case. Before noon, Chart Thai Pattana Party spokesman Watchara Kannikar calls on parties concerned to respect the judicial decision. If rival camps continue to carry on the fight, then the political struggle might escalate into a civil war, he says. Watchara urges the authorities to exercise restraints and refrain from using force to crackdown on protesters. And the military should not exploit the situation to seize power, he says. 1.15 pm: In his video link message to Pheu Thai Party, Thaksin calls on his supporters to join him in listening in to the verdict. He says he views the verdict as the historic moment signalling the major change following a long political struggle. He says he braces well for the verdict. "The ball is now not in our court, it is up to how the other would play and direct the ball," he says, ahead of the verdict session. 1.30 pm: Judges start reading the verdict by outlining the prosecution case The high court begins by outlining the prosecution argument detailing Thaksin's equity structure in Shin Corp. The prosecution contends equity structure was designed to conceal true ownership. The next issue is the conversion of telecom concession fees into excise charges to favour the family-controlled Shin Corp. The other prosecution point is the adjustment of the revenue sharing agreement on pre-paid mobile phone services to benefit Advanced Information Service. The prosecution contends Thaksin's interference in regulating the telecom industry to benefit his family-controlled telecom group, boosting its market valuation. The prosecution outlines Thaksin's involvement to fix the concession contract on satellite communications. Because of his meddling, ThaiCom 4, a designated satellite for back-up communications, was cancelled and replaced by the launching of IPStar which allows the operator to start the satellite service for Internet instead of fulfilling the original ageement on satellite communications. The prosection contends Thaksin's inference in satellite communications has inflicted Bt4 billion damage to the state and left a long-lasting impact on the country's communications security. The prosecution contends Thaksin's involvement to grant Exim Bank loans to Burma in order to benefit the telecom and satellite businesses of his family business empire. Under Thaksin's instruction, the loans were increased from Bt3 billion to Bt4 billion. The prosecution contends Thaksin's involvement in increasing the equity cap on the telecom business to pave way for him and his family to sell their Shin Corp stakes to a foreign buyer. The Asset Examination Committee has frozen Bt66 billion of Bt76 billion sought as compensation to damage caused by conflict-of-interest decisions. 2.50 pm: Judges begins to outline the defence arguments. The defence contends Thaksin filed his asset statements as prescribed by the anti-graft law. The defence contends Thaksin openly transferred his equity stakes to his children before assuming office. The defence contends the AEC was biased in trying to fault Thaksin. The AEC conducted iits investigation based on expediency and not prescribed procedures. For example, the AEC claimed the shares belonging to Thaksin's children when it ruled on tax liability. But it insisted Thaksin had full control of the shares when it wanted to prosecute him for abuse of power and conflict of interest. In rebutting charges related to telecom business, the defence contends Thaksin's leadership following precribed procedures and implementing all policies sanctioned by the laws. The defence contends the wealth of Thaksin and family was earned before assuming office. The defence contends the wealth distributed from Thaksin to his children was genuine and not a scam for asset concealment. The defence cites the statutory limitation as ground for dismissal, arguing the AEC indicts Thaksin after he left office for more than two years. The defence contends the AEC failed to follow prescribed steps for indicting Thaksin and freezing the assets. The defence contends the National Anti Corruption Commission was not appointed under the constitutionally-sanctioned procedures, hence it had no mandate to carry on the defunct AEC in prosecuting Thaksin. The defence cites the statutory limitation as ground for dismissal, arguing the AEC indicts Thaksin after he left office for more than two years. The defence contends the AEC failed to follow prescribed steps for indicting Thaksin and freezing the assets. The defence contends the National Anti Corruption Commission was not appointed under the constitutionally-sanctioned procedures, hence it had no mandate to carry on the defunct AEC in prosecuting Thaksin. 3.50pm: Judges begins to read the ruling by outlining the non-contested issues and the business ties between Thaksin and his family members. First legal issue is whether the AEC has the mandate to probe Thaksin and seize the assets. The high court rules by an unanimous decision that the AEC was empowered to prosecute Thaksin. Second legal issue is whether legal provisions can be applied to Thaksin in the wake of the coup and the suspension of the 1997 charter. The high court rules the suspended charter has not impacted on law enforcement. Third legal issue is whether the coup announcement to form the AEC was legally sanctioned. The high court rules that the coup-issued law is classified as an equivalent to an act of Parliament, hence it is legally binding. Fourth legal issue is whether the AEC violates the statutory of limitations. The high court rules that the AEC complete its job within the deadline. On the fifth legal issue, the high court rules to endorse steps taken by the AEC and the NACC to conduct the inquiry, notify charges, review defence rebuttals and freeze assets. On the seventh legal issue, the high court rules to endorse appointments in the AEC, the NACC and in relevant investigative panels. On the ninth legal issue, the high court strikes down the defence argument related to biased opinions of three graft busters, Klanarong Chantik, Banjerd Singkhaneti and Kaewsan Atibhodi. On the tenth legal issue, the high court dismisses the defence argument that the prosecution omits to prove criminal wrongdoing before asking for the asset seizure. At issue is the civil litigation on whether or not the accused amass unusual or illegal wealth due to his office. This is not a litigation about criminal wrongdoing. The judges rules in the unanimous decision that the prosecution is just and has followed legally-sanctioned steps. At 5.00 pm: The judges proceed to rule on the followings: - By an unanimous decision, the prosecution is unclear on the extent of unusual wealth and how it is linked to abuse of office - The high court believes Thaksin and family retain control over Shin Corp through their equity structure before and after becoming the prime minister - The high court rules the conversion of concession fees to excise charges for mobile phone services was deemed favourable to Shin Corp, dampening competition. - In regard to the adjustment of revenue sharing scheme for AIS pre-paid services, the high court rules that the new scheme was unnecessarily made favourable to the operator. - Addressing the adjustment of roaming charges paid by AIS to its contractor Telephone Organisation of Thailand, the high court rules the charges were calculated to favour AIS. - The high court rules in a majority decision that the adjusted rules for the telecom industry were designed to favour Shin Corp. - In regard to satellite communications, the high court rules the revised contractual provision for ThaiCom deal were manipulated to designate IPStar as a back-up satellite even though its functions are different from ThaiCom. This allows the contractor to avoid launching ThaiCom4. - The high court rules the decision to adjust satellite contractual provisions resulted in helping Shin Corp and ThaiCom to launch a new satellite without having to bid for a new concession. - By a majority decision, the jugdes rule the ThaiCom deal was favourable to Shin Corp. - The high court rules that Shin Corp, state concessionair holding the majority stakes in ThaiCom, diluted its equity in the satellite communications without the approval of the Cabinet. - By a majority decision, the judges rule the equity dilution was favourable to Shin Corp. - The high court finds the decision to allow ThaiCom to earmark an insurance claim from damaged ThaiCom3 satellite to lease a foreign satellite instead of launching a back-up satellite was arbitrary. - By a majority decision, the judges rule such arbitrary decision to favour Shin Corp and ThaiCom. - The high court finds that the approval of Exim Bank loans to Burma was part of the Thai foreign policy. - It also uncovers that the telecom deal came up after Thaksin met Burmese leaders and that the deal was not in the original talks in Pegu, Burma to promote good neighbourly relations. - The high court believes the Burmese request to increase the loans from Bt3 billion to Bt4 billion under concessionary terms was destined to pay for services provided by ThaiCom. - By a majority decision, the judges rules the deal was favourable to Shin Corp and Thaicom. At 8.15: the judges move to address Thaksin's involvement in benefiting Shin Corp. The high court finds Thaksin as prime minister and his ministers, including those from Finance, Industry and Information Communication and Technology were directly linked to deals deemed favourable to Shin Corp. By a majority decision, the judges rule Thaksin abuse his office to benefit Shin Corp, AIS and ThaiCom. The high court rules Thaksin's wealth is ill-gotten gains. The earnings from the Shin Corp deal to Temasek of Singapore is ill-gotten, hence can be confiscated by the state. The high court then addresses the ground on asset seizure related to the wealth held by Thaksin's ex-wife. The judges rule ill-gotten gains in the name of the spouse can be seized. The judges outline two grounds to seize assets - unusual increase in wealth and abuse of office to beget the wealth. The judges move to address that the dividend payments can be seized. The judges say the original stakes owned by Thaksin before assuming office can not be seized. By a majority decision, the seizable assets confined to dividend payment worth Bt6 billion and the capital gains worth Bt39 billion. The total seizure is Bt46 billion.

Explainer: Who is Thaksin Shinawatra? By Dan Rivers, CNN February 26, 2010 Bangkok, Thailand (CNN) -- Thaksin Shinawatra was the prime minister of Thailand from 2001-2006, when he was ousted in a bloodless coup. After his ouster, he continued to play a role in Thai politics -- even from outside of the southeast Asian nation. Who is Thaksin Shinawatra? Visionary leader or venal despot: Opinions vary, like the color of the shirts his supporters and detractors wear. If you sport red, you think Thaksin was the only prime minister to offer the rural poor a voice and real benefits; if you wear yellow, you view him as akin to Ferdinand Marcos: greedy, self-serving and dangerous. What is not in dispute is that he won two elections, was the only Thai prime minister to serve a full-term in office and is still hugely popular. But critics say he bought his support and was only in politics to help himself. What is he accused of? In 2008 he was found guilty and sentenced in absentia to two years in prison for a land deal that enabled his wife to buy a valuable city plot for a fraction of its true value. The case currently being considered by the Supreme Court relates to the transfer of shares in his communications company Shin Corporation. The prosecution alleges he illegally transferred the shares to his family, who then sold them to the Singapore government's Temasek without paying tax. The court will also rule on whether Thaksin's government implemented policies that benefited his businesses, including a low interest loan from the Thai government to the Myanmar government to buy equipment from Shin Corp, a change in tax laws that benefited Shin Corp and changes to satellite laws that helped Shin Corp. What does Thaksin's defense team say? The defense team argues that neither Thaksin nor his wife owned the Shin Corp shares while he was prime minister, selling them to their son before he took office. It was their son who decided to sell Shin Corp to the Singaporeans. The defense also claims that the Assets Scrutiny Committee -- which has led the investigation in this case -- was politically motivated, having been appointed after the coup that ousted Thaksin, and therefore was biased against him. How much money is at stake? 76.6 billion baht (about US$2.3 billion dollars). That is the total value of his and his family's assets that are currently frozen in Thailand. But there is speculation that he has a great deal more money elsewhere. Why bother going after Thaksin when so many other Thai leaders have been perceived to be corrupt? Well, Thailand certainly has had a checkered history. But current Premier Abhisit Vejjajiva is widely believed to be honest and free from any taint of corruption. He wants to give the country a fresh start by showing no one is above the rule of law and that means ensuring Thaksin isn't allowed to get away with his alleged corruption, even though he is in exile. However, many analysts say this case is not just about corruption, but more about Thaksin's challenge to the Thai political elite that has ruled for decades. The theory goes that Thaksin was dangerously popular and refused to submit to powerful factions in the army, privy council and aristocracy -- hence the 2006 coup and the lengthy efforts to shut him down. Has Thaksin continued to be a thorn in the side of the current government? Yes. He has recently been appointed economic adviser to Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen at a time when relations between Thailand and its neighbor Cambodia are particularly fractious. He has also continued to fund his "red shirt" supporters, who organized numerous rallies and demonstrations against the government. He continues to make "appearances" at the red shirt rallies, via satellite or phone from Dubai. Who are the yellow shirts? They have protested for years against Thaksin, starting while he was still in office and helping to precipitate the coup against him. But even after he was ousted the yellow shirts didn't rest. When Thaksin's allies returned to power after an election in 2007, the yellow shirts took to the streets again, culminating in their occupation of Bangkok's two main airports in November 2008. Thaksin's allies were finally kicked out after a court ruling dissolved the party for vote rigging. Political maneuvering helped the current ruling Democrat party cobble together a coalition in 2009. If Thaksin's assets are seized, how will it compare to previous Thai politicians? Well, there is quite a track record. Thaksin stands to lose $2.3 billion (76.6 billion baht), way more than politicians before him -- even allowing for inflation. Gen. Chatichai Choonhaven, former prime minister, and ten other politicians had 1.6 billion baht seized in 1991, after their administration was brought down by a coup. Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn had 434 million baht seized in 1974 after an investigation by his successor found he was "unusually rich". Another Field Marshal, Sarit Thanarat, had 604 million baht seized in 1964. But an investigation after his death found in total he "granted" 2.8 billion baht for "secret services" to himself and associates -- most of which was never recovered.

While I can understand why people can get awfully frustrated with IRS, it's hard to understand why it can drive someone who seemed quite stable to everyone who knew him over the edge like that. Besides, IRS tactics have changed and though they don't let people get out of difficult tax situations, as long as there was no fraud involved they usually will make a fair, reasonable agreement with people so they can pay off their tax debt in a way that won't cause them severe financial hardship. I would have thought an intelligent person, and this man apparently was, would use an accountant to avoid tax surprises and audits. If you have a complicated tax return, then that's the time to pay an accountant (and the accountant's fees are deductible). That's not the time to rely on Turbo Tax. I wonder how this man did his taxes. Did he use software such as Turbo Tax? Did he use an accountant or tax attorney? What caused him to be in so much trouble that he found himself so deeply over his head that he ended up psychotic enough to do what he did? Did he try to defraud IRS? There are a lot of unanswered questions in this case and I'm curious about it.