View Full Version : Why Your Guns Won't Be Worth $600 In 2012...
http://libertyconspiracy.com/healthcare_fascism_bill_includes_firearm_taxtrack_provison
Effective January 1, 2012, the national healthcare legislation passed by Congress contains tax provisions that will require gun dealers to report to the IRS purchases and sales of guns and any other goods valued over $600. IRS 1099 forms will have to be filed, reporting the sale/purchase. This reporting will be required for purchases from either individuals or corporations. The new IRS provisions apply to all goods and services.
This isn't just a bill that is introduced, this is already passed. This was part of the Health Care bill that has been signed into law.
From what I know of the IRS 1099 form, and the extension of it in the Health Care law, it will have to be repealed. Even the IRS has said it doesn't have the manpower to process the literal mountain of paperwork it will require.
Good stuff can get lost. :sarcastic:
Wow. Good ol' Pelosi was right, "We need to pass the health care bill to see what is in it". :mad:
From what I know of the IRS 1099 form, and the extension of it in the Health Care law, it will have to be repealed. Even the IRS has said it doesn't have the manpower to process the literal mountain of paperwork it will require.
LOL. You think THAT will stop it?
My God they solved the problem of people with no healthcare by REQUIRING people to buy healthcare. That is like me solving the homeless problem by REQUIRING people to buy housing.
The fact that it isn't practical, logical, reasonable, etc. won't stop anything. They will create additional bureaucracy to address the workload and charge more in taxes to pay for it.
The fact that the government doesn't have the manpower to handle the record keeping is exactly why they want it. They can then "create jobs" and request more tax dollars.
The last thing they are gonna do is repeal it.
LOL. You think THAT will stop it?
My God they solved the problem of people with no healthcare by REQUIRING people to buy healthcare. That is like me solving the homeless problem by REQUIRING people to buy housing.
The fact that it isn't practical, logical, reasonable, etc. won't stop anything. They will create additional bureaucracy to address the workload and charge more in taxes to pay for it.
The fact that the government doesn't have the manpower to handle the record keeping is exactly why they want it. They can then "create jobs" and request more tax dollars.
The last thing they are gonna do is repeal it.
Supposedly there's a bill to repeal it already in the works. My guess is that it will be repealed, but who knows.
Not to be dismissive, but I plan on buying most of the guns I want within the next year anyways. Still, this is wrong and I worry about my child who has to put up with this crap in the future.
Who wants to bet that the 1099 form is tied to the social security number of the purchaser? Maybe it's obvious and I just now realized it, but this would simply be additional information held about each tax payer...
Total Income: $49,456
Taxable Income: $32,492
Firearms: 6.
That's great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane - Lenny Bruce is not afraid... :dance3:
Can't wait, its gonna be awesome when all this shit the government is doing eventually blows up in their faces.
Supposedly there's a bill to repeal it already in the works. My guess is that it will be repealed, but who knows.
Not to be dismissive, but I plan on buying most of the guns I want within the next year anyways. Still, this is wrong and I worry about my child who has to put up with this crap in the future.
Who wants to bet that the 1099 form is tied to the social security number of the purchaser? Maybe it's obvious and I just now realized it, but this would simply be additional information held about each tax payer...
It WILL be tied to the SS number of the seller. That is the person selling the gun to the gun dealer. And here is why it won't be repealed.
http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/09/14/health-care-1099-reporting/
Amendments to ease health care 1099 reporting die partisan death
The health care bill that passed in July had an obscure provision about 1099 forms. Health care 1099 reporting isn’t obscure anymore. To raise money for health care reform, the 1099 rule aims to cut down on tax evasion.
To raise money for health care reform, the 1099 rule aims to cut down on tax evasion.
i gotta tell you, i think this is really what it's all about. i've thought that since the beginning. i think tax evasion in this country is WAAAY higher than the gov ever wants the general public to realize. i think they've been trying to figure out how to force it out of people for some time, and this is how.
i'm not one for making stupid remarks on internet forums- and i, for the record, pay my taxes- but suffice it to say i have "suspicions" about some individuals who straight up pay ZERO taxes, year after year. and i'm not talking small incomes.
cash flows in construction contracting, and cash is very hard to track.
screw their back-door registration. glocks are less than $600, and so are AR lowers.
Thomas M-4
10-06-10, 18:31
screw their back-door registration. glocks are less than $600, and so are AR lowers.
KAC SR-15 lowers are not:sad:
I could have sworn I read that this whole thing was a load of crap. :confused:
I could have sworn I read that this whole thing was a load of crap. :confused:
how would we ever know? you couldn't read the whole bill in a lifetime.
I believe that the NRA or some other group debunked it. I am trying to check it out now.
how would we ever know? you couldn't read the whole bill in a lifetime.
http://libertyconspiracy.com/healthcare_fascism_bill_includes_firearm_taxtrack_provison
Effective January 1, 2012, the national healthcare legislation passed by Congress contains tax provisions that will require gun dealers to report to the IRS purchases and sales of guns and any other goods valued over $600. IRS 1099 forms will have to be filed, reporting the sale/purchase. This reporting will be required for purchases from either individuals or corporations. The new IRS provisions apply to all goods and services.
This isn't just a bill that is introduced, this is already passed. This was part of the Health Care bill that has been signed into law.
I think it is the other way around. The PURCHASER has to file the 1099 that he gave the seller the money.
And it is estimated that the extra costs of keeping track of all of this will eat up any extra money they get through compliance.
ETA: I have not read about this for a couple of months but I think that transactions paid for by CC are exempt from the purchaser having to report the purchase on a 1099 (that should raise red flags!) The gun dealer is not reporting the sale to the IRS -- you are reporting it to the IRS as the purchaser and only cash or check purchases. The whole thing is more than stupid.
Moose-Knuckle
10-06-10, 18:58
I can see the correlation, under the new "health care" law, purchases of firearms must be reported under some new pyshco babel bull butter. . . :rolleyes:
After all people who own guns are. . .http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1087.gif
Nathan_Bell
10-06-10, 19:11
Simplest way to explain it, they are extending the 1099 rule from services to goods as well. Previously it was necessary for a business to 1099 anyone that they paid more than $600 but only for labor/services. They had the receipts for the good to show the monetary transactions.
Individuals are currently not required to do this. The law as written is vague enough that anyone who itemizes will possibly have to do so. Considering that the IRS is screaming bloody murder about the stupidity of this part of the law, I do not see them deciding to interpret the law in that manner.
i gotta tell you, i think this is really what it's all about. i've thought that since the beginning. i think tax evasion in this country is WAAAY higher than the gov ever wants the general public to realize. i think they've been trying to figure out how to force it out of people for some time, and this is how.
On my drive home from work, I was thinking about this thread and... after some long, hard thought, I came to the same conclusion. I don't think has anything to do with gun registration. Yes, it does open the smallest (albeit near impossible) door for a slippery-slope argument to allow it, but this in and of itself is not about gun registration, it's about taxes.
The other thing is that, in the case of gun sales, I don't think the individual guns will be tracked or even reported. Rather, it's about reporting the total expenses involved. If you read the bill's wording, they allow for reporting of the entire transaction and don't require itemization of each of the purchased items. Gun dealers generally don't purchase weapons to sell individually (many times its several) and I don't see the IRS requesting the individual serial numbers of each weapon more than I see them requesting the individual VIN numbers of every car sold at a dealership.
And even if they did request individual serial numbers, it's not like they don't already have them (FFL transfer logs).
Anyways, provided that my logic is right, I'm not too concerned about this law. I don't like it, but I'm a law-abiding citizen and have alwats payed my taxes, so I'm not worried either.
Just my .02
I believe that the NRA or some other group debunked it. I am trying to check it out now.
That was the guns registration on income tax returns hoax. Sadly this one is actually true. Wouldn't surprise me if the original hoax was deliberate to make people doubt this one when it came to light.
I think it is the other way around. The PURCHASER has to file the 1099 that he gave the seller the money.
And it is estimated that the extra costs of keeping track of all of this will eat up any extra money they get through compliance.
ETA: I have not read about this for a couple of months but I think that transactions paid for by CC are exempt from the purchaser having to report the purchase on a 1099 (that should raise red flags!) The gun dealer is not reporting the sale to the IRS -- you are reporting it to the IRS as the purchaser and only cash or check purchases. The whole thing is more than stupid.
Not the case.
If a person sells a gun to me (since I am a gun dealer) or any other item to a business, then I have to submit a 1099 to the IRS with that persons information. This way the money I give them for the gun is considered "taxable income." Currently this only needs to be done if a person sells something for 5,000 or more.
The entire point of this is for the government to get all that "unreported income" to fund crap like health care.
i'm a little confused... income tax: taxing what you bring in. so if i buy something with my already taxed money, and then sell it- almost always for a loss- the money is now taxable again?
I don't think has anything to do with gun registration. Yes, it does open the smallest (albeit near impossible) door for a slippery-slope argument to allow it, but this in and of itself is not about gun registration, it's about taxes.
You are correct, the gun slant is poorly worded. While not a firearm registration, it will create a quasi gun owner database since most people who sell a gun probably have another. So they would have the capacity to identify a large number of probably gun owners.
But the main purpose is tax revenue. They will basically go after individuals for tax evasion with the same vigor the RIAA goes after people for piracy of music.
Not the case.
If a person sells a gun to me (since I am a gun dealer) or any other item to a business, then I have to submit a 1099 to the IRS with that persons information. This way the money I give them for the gun is considered "taxable income." Currently this only needs to be done if a person sells something for 5,000 or more.
The entire point of this is for the government to get all that "unreported income" to fund crap like health care.
Actually, yes, it is the case. The scenario you described is where you the gun dealer is the purchaser so you would be sending the 1099.
i'm a little confused... income tax: taxing what you bring in. so if i buy something with my already taxed money, and then sell it- almost always for a loss- the money is now taxable again?
Correct.
And for that matter "most income" shouldn't be taxable in the first place because it isn't "income." You trade labor for money, only those earning interest on money they already have is "income." An inheritance is income. The profit from the sale of an item is income, your paycheck really isn't income. Your paycheck is compensation.
But don't waste your time trying to apply logic.
This way the money I give them for the gun is considered "taxable income."
Not taxable income. Just income. Income is not taxable until you subtract out deductions, exemptions, etc and come up with the taxable income that is left.
It will be used by the IRS to double check things. A person who has good records and sells at a loss has no taxable income from the transaction. Someone selling a lot of stuff on the side though could get flagged for an audit.
It would need to be reported but might not end up as being taxable depending on if it is sold at a loss, etc.
Actually, yes, it is the case. The scenario you described is where you the gun dealer is the purchaser so you would be sending the 1099.
Isn't that what I said in the first place?
Isn't that what I said in the first place?
That is my question. You said that what I said was "not the case" and then described what I said... :p
Not taxable income. Just income. Income is not taxable until you subtract out deductions, exemptions, etc and come up with the taxable income that is left.
It will be used by the IRS to double check things. A person who has good records and sells at a loss has no taxable income from the transaction. Someone selling a lot of stuff on the side though could get flagged for an audit.
It would need to be reported but might not end up as being taxable depending on if it is sold at a loss, etc.
It is STILL taxable income in that it "may" result in a tax commitment. Just because you may have allowable deductions which reduce your tax commitment doesn't mean it is not considered taxable income.
I have a shitload of deductions at the end of the year, but the money I bring in is still "taxable" prior to those deductions being applied. If it was not, I wouldn't need the deductions.
Correct.
And for that matter "most income" shouldn't be taxable in the first place because it isn't "income." You trade labor for money, only those earning interest on money they already have is "income." An inheritance is income. The profit from the sale of an item is income, your paycheck really isn't income. Your paycheck is compensation.
But don't waste your time trying to apply logic.
I think that there have been some court cases about this. You are right of course. A business does not have taxable income until they subtract out their costs first. Trading time for money is an even trade and should not be taxable since your costs (time) need to be subtracted out first and since the time would be valued at what you are offering it to your employer for it would be a wash...
It is STILL taxable income in that it "may" result in a tax commitment. Just because you may have allowable deductions which reduce your tax commitment doesn't mean it is not considered taxable income.
I have a shitload of deductions at the end of the year, but the money I bring in is still "taxable" prior to those deductions being applied. If it was not, I wouldn't need the deductions.
In common parlance the "taxable income" is what you end up with after the deductions etc. It is the final figure that the tax rate is applied to.
I did not make these terms up so don't sue me :)
That is my question. You said that what I said was "not the case" and then described what I said... :p
It is possible I misunderstood you. We are talking about taxes. Maybe we can move on to case law.
You threw me off when you stated I had the situation reversed.
"I think it is the other way around. The PURCHASER has to file the 1099 that he gave the seller the money."
The second part IS correct, but the first part is what made me believe we had a misunderstanding. And we are BOTH in agreement with what was originally stated so it is NOT the "other way around."
That is where the confusion began.
In common parlance the "taxable income" is what you end up with after the deductions etc. It is the final figure that the tax rate is applied to.
I did not make these terms up so don't sue me :)
Perhaps for individuals, not for business owners.
An individual is told what his "taxable income" is as a final figure. A business owner begins with his "taxable income" figure and tries to make as much as possible go away and is left with his "tax commitment."
It is possible I misunderstood you. We are talking about taxes. Maybe we can move on to case law.
You threw me off when you stated I had the situation reversed.
"I think it is the other way around. The PURCHASER has to file the 1099 that he gave the seller the money."
The second part IS correct, but the first part is what made me believe we had a misunderstanding. And we are BOTH in agreement with what was originally stated so it is NOT the "other way around."
That is where the confusion began.
I think your original post was a little vague and had me confused as it was talking about gun dealers reporting sales and purchases. Sounded to me like you were saying that the dealer reports the sale to the IRS. Could be my bad.
contains tax provisions that will require gun dealers to report to the IRS purchases and sales of guns and any other goods valued over $600.
I think your original post was a little vague and had me confused as it was talking about gun dealers reporting sales and purchases. Sounded to me like you were saying that the dealer reports the sale to the IRS. Could be my bad.
I didn't write it. They worded many things poorly, just as the gun registration angle.
Perhaps for individuals, not for business owners.
An individual is told what his "taxable income" is as a final figure. A business owner begins with his "taxable income" figure and tries to make as much as possible go away and is left with his "tax commitment."
Uhh, no. I just looked at my 1120 return for 2006 for a C-Corp. The word "Taxable Income" is line 30 and is after deductions and stuff. Line 11 is "Total income" which is gross receipts minus cost of sales.
The 1065 partnership return I looked at is a little different because the income gets reports on the member/partners K-1 so they have "Total Income" and "Business Income" (which is the taxable income reported on partners returns)
CNN Money Article about this change:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/
Basically, if any business buys $600 worth of goods (total, during the entire year) from another business, a 1099 has to be issued with the tally of the amount of purchases.
Imagine the massive costs Staples, Walmart, EVERY retailer, and most Fortune 500 companies will incur to comply. That is why I think it'll be repealed.
i'm a little confused... income tax: taxing what you bring in. so if i buy something with my already taxed money, and then sell it- almost always for a loss- the money is now taxable again?
Actually, that is already law and has been for quite some time. The only "new" part to this law requiring the 1099.
However, this specific law of requiring a 1099 only applies to businesses. If you net under $400 per year in any specific activity, it qualifies as a "hobby" and not a business and you are not required to report it. More than that and you need to file your past-time as a business entity.
Actually, that is already law and has been for quite some time. The only "new" part to this law requiring the 1099.
However, this specific law of requiring a 1099 only applies to businesses. If you net under $400 per year in any specific activity, it qualifies as a "hobby" and not a business and you are not required to report it. More than that and you need to file your past-time as a business entity.
"net" is a key word there, my friend. if i sell a gun at a loss, my "net" is negative.
Preferred User
10-06-10, 23:17
Section 9006 of the health care bill mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.
But the paperwork flurry is just beginning. Consider these examples: Under the new rules, if a home based business owner buys a new iMac from the Apple Store, they'll have to send Apple a 1099. A restaurant that buys supplies each week from Costco or Sam's Club will have to send the supplier a 1099 at the end of the year tallying up their purchases. A business that buys donuts for a weekly meeting from Duncan Donuts will have to send them a 1099. And the insanity goes on from there.
"net" is a key word there, my friend. if i sell a gun at a loss, my "net" is negative.
Eh, that honestly depends on which IRS agent is auditing you. Since you aren't a business, you technically can't file losses on something that isn't a source of income, therefore you can't file a negative net in regards to your firearm purchases.
If you file as a business with firearms, well, you technically have to report all income from sold items and then find a way to deduct from that (you simply can't take your net loss on a used gun and use it as a deduction).
I'm not making this up. This has been law for quite some time, most people simply don't bother with it since most sales are cash and the IRS usually isn't going to go after someone for $800.
no matter how you shake it.. this obamacare bill is the single biggest/worst breech of trust our government has ever force-fed us. even if it wasn't completely un-Constitutional, we'd still have all the reason in the world to hang them all.
I think I am going to send in a 1099 on Obama listing all of the taxes that I paid in to the government this year.
But which of his 9 social security numbers is the real one??
And doesn't this bill do the same thing for that Kruggerand you bought 20 years ago?
And doesn't it set a tax on all real estate transactions and all sales of stocks?
That's what I've been told but haven't explored it all.
What fun.
no matter how you shake it.. this obamacare bill is the single biggest/worst breech of trust our government has ever force-fed us. even if it wasn't completely un-Constitutional, we'd still have all the reason in the world to hang them all.
And, amazingly, some of my local dems are bragging about passing this bill in their reelection campaigns.
Is this from the same government that gives money and free healthcare to whores who won't use contraceptives?
Here is the reply I got from the NRA-ILA. I'll let the school trained lawyers figure it out.
Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA.
We've received several questions about a provision in the health care bill (sec. 9006, in case anyone throws it at you) that requires reporting to the IRS of all purchases of goods and services over $600 by "persons engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course of such trade or business to another person." Coverage of the issue is available at http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gold-coin-dealers-decry-tax-law/story?id=11211611
Reporting would be on Form 1099, which is the form you get at tax time for various types of income other than wages. Because the 1099 is sent both to the supplier and to the IRS, the provision is intended to make it easier for the IRS to collect taxes. The requirement doesn't start until Jan. 1, 2012.
Some people are concerned about this in general terms, as a burden on small businesses. Others are suggesting it could amount to a form of gun registration.
There is no question the provision imposes a large paperwork burden on small businesses, including firearms dealers. A small dealer who buys single guns, or a few guns at a time, from multiple suppliers, will have to do an awful lot of 1099s every January. For a detailed description of other potential problems, see the attached letter sent to the IRS by Republican members of the House Small Business Committee.
As for the gun registration aspect, the bill does apply to individuals, but only with respect to business expenses by those "engaged in a trade or business." So it would apply to a non-incorporated FFL who buys a gun for his business inventory, but not to an individual gun owner buying a gun for his collection. (In fact, since a person "engaged in the business" of repetitively buying and selling firearms for profit has to have an FFL, the impact on without FFLs would likely be small.)
Also, the 1099 itself doesn't currently allow for a very specific description of what the expenditure is for. Since the amendment requires reporting of all "amounts in consideration for property," so many types of expenditures would be reported that it's probably unlikely that the IRS would require much more than the total that Taxpayer A paid to Vendor B during the course of the tax year. (FFLs, of course, already have to keep detailed records on guns they buy and sell, and those records are subject to inspection by BATFE.)
The bottom line is that the requirement will probably be very burdensome for small businesses, but doesn't amount to gun registration for individuals.
The NRA hasn't taken a position on this issue, but Rep. Dan Lungren (D-Calif.) has already introduced a repeal bill (H.R. 5141), which concerned individuals could certainly ask their lawmakers to support.
Again, thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to share any of your thoughts or concerns in the future.
Sincerely,
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
Rmplstlskn
10-07-10, 08:53
Here is the reply I got from the NRA-ILA. I'll let the school trained lawyers figure it out.
It is DEATH BY PAPERWORK that is really DEATH BY TAXES...
No gun registration, but clear paper trails. What it does do is shackle us even further to the beast that broke loose from Constitutional shackles long ago... And add HUGE PAPERWORK and bookkeeping nightmares upon ALL BUSINESSES, not just small ones. It is the small ones that do not have an "accounting dept" to handle the huge burden of reporting placed upon them...
Rmpl
And don't forget, to send out a 1099, every business for an over $600 transaction will now need your full name and mailing address. How is that for huge paper trails on anything you buy over $600...
If your business buys $600 or more, you send the 1099 to the business you bought from. AFAIK this doesn't apply to individuals except when acting on business terms. In the cases I can think of, any time a business would have to give out a 1099 they would already have your mailing address.
Rmplstlskn
10-07-10, 09:30
If your business buys $600 or more, you send the 1099 to the business you bought from. AFAIK this doesn't apply to individuals except when acting on business terms. In the cases I can think of, any time a business would have to give out a 1099 they would already have your mailing address.
You are correct... I edited my post. But it does institute a huge additional paperwork burden upon all businesses... And it does put a TAX paper trail upon anyone SELLING anything over $600 to a business, such as selling gold, antiques, firearms (besides BATF forms), vehicles, equipment, etc...
Rmpl
Absolutely does. I'm going to contact my representative to see what his position on HR5141 is.
Taxes is just a scam anyways. How many times in an items lifetime does it need "taxed"? Once...... every time it changes hands...... rule to say when it's taxed if not every time it changes hands. It's like private sales of Automobiles the State wants to charge sale's tax. If I wanted to pay sales tax I would buy a new car. Same dang thing.
Uhh, no. I just looked at my 1120 return for 2006 for a C-Corp. The word "Taxable Income" is line 30 and is after deductions and stuff. Line 11 is "Total income" which is gross receipts minus cost of sales.
The 1065 partnership return I looked at is a little different because the income gets reports on the member/partners K-1 so they have "Total Income" and "Business Income" (which is the taxable income reported on partners returns)
I can do that to. When I do my quarterly report the line says "total taxable income" and then I do my deductions.
I can do that to. When I do my quarterly report the line says "total taxable income" and then I do my deductions.
You misunderstand that report.
Your quarterly report is not asking you for total income. It is asking you to make an estimate of your taxable income (after deductions etc) and asking you to make an estimated tax payment based on that.
You misunderstand that report.
Your quarterly report is not asking you for total income. It is asking you to make an estimate of your taxable income (after deductions etc) and asking you to make an estimated tax payment based on that.
Not true.
It asks first for total taxable income, then exempt income (which I deduct from my total taxable income) and then other deductions.
We really should move on to arguing case law.
:laugh:
I should really settle this.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-taxable-income.htm
Taxable income is gross income made by an individual or business that is considered taxable by a state or country, or both in the US. There are certain things, depending upon income level and other country-mandated deductions, that are reduced from the amount of income considered taxable.
Not true.
It asks first for total taxable income, then exempt income (which I deduct from my total taxable income) and then other deductions.
We really should move on to arguing case law.
:laugh:
I should really settle this.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-taxable-income.htm
Taxable income is gross income made by an individual or business that is considered taxable by a state or country,
The qualifier is important here. "that is considered taxable by a state or country." It is not the gross income that is taxable. It is the income which is considered taxable, that is, the income which is taxed.
The IRS considers taxable income to be the income which is actually taxed -- after business expenses etc.
or both in the US. There are certain things, depending upon income level and other country-mandated deductions, that are reduced from the amount of income considered taxable.
Not true.
It asks first for total taxable income, then exempt income (which I deduct from my total taxable income) and then other deductions.
Actually, yes it is true. Here is a link to the corp estimated tax form. The individual is similar
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf
First line asks for taxable income. Then it proceeds to calculate the tax due immediately. There is no place for your deductions etc. Because you have already taken those out before you wrote your taxable income.
In addition (in a section that the IRS uses to try and debunk tax protestor info) it says that section 62 defines taxable income as gross minus deductions
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc224375584
Bonaccorso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-278, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 554 (2005) – the taxpayer filed zero returns based on the argument that he found no Code section that made him liable for any income tax. The court held that the taxpayer’s argument was frivolous citing to section 1 (imposes an income tax), section 63 (defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions), and section 61 (defines gross income). The court also imposed a $10,000 sanction against the taxpayer under section 6673 for making frivolous arguments.
We really should move on to arguing case law.
:laugh:
I should really settle this.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-taxable-income.htm
Taxable income is gross income made by an individual or business that is considered taxable by a state or country, or both in the US. There are certain things, depending upon income level and other country-mandated deductions, that are reduced from the amount of income considered taxable.
The qualifier is important here. "that is considered taxable by a state or country." It is not the gross income that is taxable. It is the income which is considered taxable, that is, the income which is taxed.
The IRS considers taxable income to be the income which is actually taxed -- after business expenses etc.
And if you have no deductions, that gross it taxable income. So it is ALL potentially taxable UNTIL you have deductions. And I'm pretty sure we can argue semantics and varying definitions for 10 pages.
But right now I'm too busy trying to generate some taxable income.
But right now I'm too busy trying to generate some taxable income.
first thing anybody's said that i can relate to in about 20 posts.
this thread went from a very satisfying hate-rant about the government to tax accounting 201.... THANKS GUYS!
Shadow1198
10-11-10, 06:55
My head feels that boot a stamping. :shout:
variablebinary
10-11-10, 07:11
So you pay an income tax to earn a living
You use those wages to buy a gun, and then pay sales tax
You decide you don't want the gun anymore and sell it, you have to pay tax on that same firearm which you've already been double taxed already?
Is that the gist?
So you pay an income tax to earn a living
You use those wages to buy a gun, and then pay sales tax
You decide you don't want the gun anymore and sell it, you have to pay tax on that same firearm which you've already been double taxed already?
Is that the gist?
Only if you sell it for more than you paid (and maybe things like you are a business or the buyer is a business etc in terms of the 1099 part)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.