AZ Nomad wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:26:45 -0400, Husky wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:54:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
They wouldn't. The question was WTF would one need a 4 year old
cancelled check for. The answer was above.
And I asked how a bank statement wouldn't be sufficient and was ignored.
The IRS requires the cancelled checks, you weren't ignored, I just
was a little too subtle in my reply (g).
bull****. Bank statements are sufficient.
Most banks don't provide returned canceled checks nowadays anyway,
another fact that you ignored.

Get online for a canceled check image if you feel a need to verify the
handwriting and signature, but otherwise, a bank statement is
sufficient. It proves that there was a transfer of funds.

Sorry, bank statements don't cut it when all the statements show are the
check number, when it cleared, and the amount. I could write a check to
myself, for the amount of any bill, cash it, and claim that paid the
bill. Without the canceled check, no proof of payment, period.

again bull****. There's the concept of a transaction and it involves
a transfer of funds from one person to another. If you cash the
check, it hasn't transfered any funds to the other party. The
statement will show it either going to you, or to cash.

You're not very bright, are you?
Pot-Kettle-Black.
Not all financial institutions list the payee on the statement. Don't
assume your little corner of the universe is how the rest of the world
does things.