Slashdot Mirror

Contrary to what the summary implies, it's not a $7500 check from the IRS. It's a tax credit. You have to owe at least $7500 in taxes in order to take full advantage of the $7500 tax credit. If you owe less, you don't get the full credit.

Looking at the IRS tax stats for 2015, column U (average total income tax paid), the $50k-$75k bracket paid an average of $5341 in income tax, the $75k-$100k bracket paid an average of $8430 in income tax. So you had to have an income of about $75k+ to claim the full $7500 tax credit. Not exactly upper class, but definitely upper middle class. Looking at the number of returns in each income bracket, pretty much only the top 25% of incomes qualified for the full $7500.

People in the bottom 75% usually got less than $7500 even if they bought a qualifying EV. And low-income people who typically pay little to no income tax, even if they somehow managed to buy an EV (a lease would qualify you for the credit) got next to nothing. I'm actually not sure how this $7500 tax credit lasted this long. Conservatives should've hated it because it was a massive government subsidy. Liberals should've hated it because it was horribly regressive.

The corporate ladder is a bit out of your grasp.

Depending on which state you file the paperwork, a corporation can be created for as low as a few hundred dollars. The most practical business entity is a limited liability company taxed as a corporation that files its own tax return.

[citation needed]. This article says it's everyone under one roof, it doesn't say anything about "mommy, daddy and dependents".

"Household income is a measure of the combined incomes of all people sharing a particular household or place of residence."

The IRS has a definition closer to what the AC said: Household income is the modified adjusted gross income of you, your spouse (if filing jointly), and any dependents who are required to file a tax return.

The interesting this about this is that you can earn A LOT more than than the usual 20% tax bracket and still pay 20%

Everyone focuses on this side of capital gains taxes, never the flip side. I think the flip side is the more important one.

If you're in a lower tax bracket, you still pay 20% capital gains tax. This has the effect of discouraging middle- and low-income people from investing in stocks. And since stocks on average have a much higher rate of return than interest in a bank savings account, you steer low- and middle-income people away from the best way to accumulate wealth short of starting a company.

In the U.S., the long-term capital gains tax is 15%. After accounting for deductions and credits, the $100k-$200k income bracket pays a net 12.7% in income taxes (column T). The $200k-$500k income bracket pays a net 19.5%. So 15% is somewhere around $200k. The flat 15% capital gains tax rate discourages people making less than $200k from investing in stocks.

We need to get rid of the flat capital gains tax rate. If you still want to encourage investment in stocks (the reason it exists), change the capital gains tax rate to your income tax bracket minus 10%. That way all income classes receive that encouragement, not just higher incomes.

Trickster owes AC $100 mil in unprovable, but bona fide, debt. AC gives up, forgives $100 mil debt, writes off $100 mil loss on income taxes, issues Trickster 1099-C. Trickster receives 1099-C, has $100 mil in cancellation of debt income. Cancellation of debt income is ordinary income, not capital gains. Unless cancelled debt falls into certain exemptions, Trickster now has a $39,556,169.95 tax bill.

There's a difference between a bona fide debt that you can't enforce because of a defect, say, in the chain of title or in the note itself, or because you waited too long to try to enforce the debt and it became subject to a statute of limitations, and unprovable debt because it isn't bona fide in the first place. If there is no bona fide debt, there's no debt to cancel, so no cancellation of debt income.

And in many cases, because the person having their debt forgiven is insolvent already, they won't have any additional tax due to cancellation of debt. There are a number of exemptions for Cancellation of Debt income, it isn't something that most people have to deal with, and many who do have no additional tax burden.

Read up on what the IRS itself says: Publication 4681, Canceled Debts, Foreclosures, Repossessions, and Abandonments (for Individuals).

I think forgiving debt is the right thing to do, and can sometimes return more than continuing to pursue bad debts. If a business is in the business of loaning money, a profitable business can forgive uncollectible debt and have deduct that from its gross ordinary income. If it is profitable, and is paying corporate income taxes, each dollar in debt forgiveness will save $0.35 in taxes it won't have to pay. That's higher than what bad debts go for on the bad paper market.

I've got no problem with these rulings: these loan trusts need to get their act together. They know the law much better than the people they are loaning money to, and have no excuse for not following it.

We are already well on our way to that. When I was a kid there was a guy in our neighborhood who was very proud of buying his new cars in cash. He'd save up walk into the dealership and just buy a car. Whether it was wise or not it was something you could do. Try doing that now and the dealer probably won't take the payment. Simply because they don't want to deal with the paperwork. The government won't ban cash they'll just encumber it with requirements until people stop accepting it.

If you are interested the paper work, at least that I am aware of, is IRS form 8300. You can find a publication talking about it below. That rule has pretty much-reduced cash to use in small transactions because most companies simply don't want to do deal with the paperwork. Those that do still allow large cash transactions are creating the same sort of paper trail using credit creates anyway. Either way they get to monitor all but minor transactions.

IRS Publication I544

I don't see rich people fleeing Chicago

The average annual income of taxpayers leaving Illinois was $77,000 while the average income of people entering Illinois was $57,000 in 2014; the vast majority of the outflow hailing from the Chicagoland area. So yeah, it's pretty much exactly "rich" people fleeing Chicago.

I recommend looking at the IRS withholding calculator to get an accurate understanding of taxes. Making 91k with the 27.5k award you will pay $20,702 in taxes while only making 91k you will pay $13,834. The 27.5k gets taxed at a higher rate a little over 25% while the 91k is taxed at around 15%.

Yes, really. Let's go through an example. Assume a 3-person household with $60,000 in household income (i.e., the median household, rounded to 1 significant digit). Assume all income is earned by one person, is classified as 1099, there are zero business expenses, and the filing status is "married filing jointly." Crucially, assume that the taxpayers actually contribute to retirement accounts (a self-employed 401k, two IRAs and/or an HSA), up to the maximum allowed by the IRS or $30,000, whichever is smaller, and that all contributions are traditional (not Roth).

On Schedule C-EZ, line 3 (net profit) is $60,000. On Schedule SE, line 3 is $60,000, line 4 is $55,410, line 5 (self-employment tax) is $8,477.73 and line 6 (deductible portion of self-employment tax) is $4,238.87.

On the Pub. 560 "Deduction Worksheet for Self-Employed," step 1 is $60,000, step 2 is $4,283.87, step 3 is $55,716.14, step 4 is 0.2, step 5 is $11,143.23, step 6 is $66,250, step 7 is $11,143.23, step 8 is $53,000, step 9 is $18,000, step 10 is $35,000, step 11 is $37716.14, step 12 is $18,858.07, step 13 is $11,143.23, step 14 is $44,572.91, step 15 is $18,000, assume no catch-up contributions, step 19 is $29,143.23, step 20 is $0, and step 21 (maximum deductible contribution) is $29,143.23.

On form 1040, line 2 (filing status MFJ) is checked, line 6d (total exemptions) is 3, line 12 (business income) and line 22 (total income) are both $60,000, line 27 (deductible SE tax) is $4238.87, line 28 (self-employed qualified plan deduction) is $29,143.23, line 32 (IRA deduction) is $856.77, line 36 (total deductions) is $34238.87, line 37/38 (AGI) is $25,761.13, line 40 (standard deduction) is $12,600, line 41 is $13161.13, line 42 (exemptions) is $12150, line 43 (taxable income) is $1011.13, line 44 (tax) is $101, line 51 (saver's credit) is $101, line 52 is probably non-zero but irrelevant (because we already hit $0 tax liability, so additional non-refundable credits don't matter), line 55 (total credits) is $101, line 56 is $0, line 57 (self-employment tax) is $8477.73, line 63 (total tax) is $8477.73 and line 74 (total payments) is $0.

TL;DR: In this example, contributing to retirement plans reduced AGI so much that the "regular" tax was a big fat zero dollars and the overall tax rate including SE tax was 14%. Moreover, there was plenty of room for optimization (i.e., the family could have saved less -- or saved as Roth contributions -- without increasing their tax liability). Even if the example had no children (and thus one less $4050 exemption), they would have qualified for a full $2000 worth of saver's credit and still would have ended up with an overall tax rate of only 18%.

Yes, really. Let's go through an example. Assume a 3-person household with $60,000 in household income (i.e., the median household, rounded to 1 significant digit). Assume all income is earned by one person, is classified as 1099, there are zero business expenses, and the filing status is "married filing jointly." Crucially, assume that the taxpayers actually contribute to retirement accounts (a self-employed 401k, two IRAs and/or an HSA), up to the maximum allowed by the IRS or $30,000, whichever is smaller, and that all contributions are traditional (not Roth).

On Schedule C-EZ, line 3 (net profit) is $60,000. On Schedule SE, line 3 is $60,000, line 4 is $55,410, line 5 (self-employment tax) is $8,477.73 and line 6 (deductible portion of self-employment tax) is $4,238.87.

On the Pub. 560 "Deduction Worksheet for Self-Employed," step 1 is $60,000, step 2 is $4,283.87, step 3 is $55,716.14, step 4 is 0.2, step 5 is $11,143.23, step 6 is $66,250, step 7 is $11,143.23, step 8 is $53,000, step 9 is $18,000, step 10 is $35,000, step 11 is $37716.14, step 12 is $18,858.07, step 13 is $11,143.23, step 14 is $44,572.91, step 15 is $18,000, assume no catch-up contributions, step 19 is $29,143.23, step 20 is $0, and step 21 (maximum deductible contribution) is $29,143.23.

On form 1040, line 2 (filing status MFJ) is checked, line 6d (total exemptions) is 3, line 12 (business income) and line 22 (total income) are both $60,000, line 27 (deductible SE tax) is $4238.87, line 28 (self-employed qualified plan deduction) is $29,143.23, line 32 (IRA deduction) is $856.77, line 36 (total deductions) is $34238.87, line 37/38 (AGI) is $25,761.13, line 40 (standard deduction) is $12,600, line 41 is $13161.13, line 42 (exemptions) is $12150, line 43 (taxable income) is $1011.13, line 44 (tax) is $101, line 51 (saver's credit) is $101, line 52 is probably non-zero but irrelevant (because we already hit $0 tax liability, so additional non-refundable credits don't matter), line 55 (total credits) is $101, line 56 is $0, line 57 (self-employment tax) is $8477.73, line 63 (total tax) is $8477.73 and line 74 (total payments) is $0.

TL;DR: In this example, contributing to retirement plans reduced AGI so much that the "regular" tax was a big fat zero dollars and the overall tax rate including SE tax was 14%. Moreover, there was plenty of room for optimization (i.e., the family could have saved less -- or saved as Roth contributions -- without increasing their tax liability). Even if the example had no children (and thus one less $4050 exemption), they would have qualified for a full $2000 worth of saver's credit and still would have ended up with an overall tax rate of only 18%.

Yes, really. Let's go through an example. Assume a 3-person household with $60,000 in household income (i.e., the median household, rounded to 1 significant digit). Assume all income is earned by one person, is classified as 1099, there are zero business expenses, and the filing status is "married filing jointly." Crucially, assume that the taxpayers actually contribute to retirement accounts (a self-employed 401k, two IRAs and/or an HSA), up to the maximum allowed by the IRS or $30,000, whichever is smaller, and that all contributions are traditional (not Roth).

On Schedule C-EZ, line 3 (net profit) is $60,000. On Schedule SE, line 3 is $60,000, line 4 is $55,410, line 5 (self-employment tax) is $8,477.73 and line 6 (deductible portion of self-employment tax) is $4,238.87.

On the Pub. 560 "Deduction Worksheet for Self-Employed," step 1 is $60,000, step 2 is $4,283.87, step 3 is $55,716.14, step 4 is 0.2, step 5 is $11,143.23, step 6 is $66,250, step 7 is $11,143.23, step 8 is $53,000, step 9 is $18,000, step 10 is $35,000, step 11 is $37716.14, step 12 is $18,858.07, step 13 is $11,143.23, step 14 is $44,572.91, step 15 is $18,000, assume no catch-up contributions, step 19 is $29,143.23, step 20 is $0, and step 21 (maximum deductible contribution) is $29,143.23.

On form 1040, line 2 (filing status MFJ) is checked, line 6d (total exemptions) is 3, line 12 (business income) and line 22 (total income) are both $60,000, line 27 (deductible SE tax) is $4238.87, line 28 (self-employed qualified plan deduction) is $29,143.23, line 32 (IRA deduction) is $856.77, line 36 (total deductions) is $34238.87, line 37/38 (AGI) is $25,761.13, line 40 (standard deduction) is $12,600, line 41 is $13161.13, line 42 (exemptions) is $12150, line 43 (taxable income) is $1011.13, line 44 (tax) is $101, line 51 (saver's credit) is $101, line 52 is probably non-zero but irrelevant (because we already hit $0 tax liability, so additional non-refundable credits don't matter), line 55 (total credits) is $101, line 56 is $0, line 57 (self-employment tax) is $8477.73, line 63 (total tax) is $8477.73 and line 74 (total payments) is $0.

TL;DR: In this example, contributing to retirement plans reduced AGI so much that the "regular" tax was a big fat zero dollars and the overall tax rate including SE tax was 14%. Moreover, there was plenty of room for optimization (i.e., the family could have saved less -- or saved as Roth contributions -- without increasing their tax liability). Even if the example had no children (and thus one less $4050 exemption), they would have qualified for a full $2000 worth of saver's credit and still would have ended up with an overall tax rate of only 18%.

Devrtm (the original poster) can donate his/her Bitcoin to any IRS 501(c)(3) tax exempt charity(ies) that accept(s) Bitcoin, for example the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Devrtm can then enjoy a U.S. personal income tax deduction for the full, fair market value of his/her donation, with no capital gains tax owed. It may be possible to make the donation anonymously, but Devrtm must keep records of the donation in his/her personal files, to document the tax deduction in case there is a future IRS inquiry. The tax deduction will likely be worth substantially more than what Devrtm paid (if anything) to obtain the Bitcoin. If Devrtm is subject to state or local income tax then there may also be charitable deductions allowed in those tax returns.

Brutal repression happens in those places because the wealthy there are an exclusive group. They maintain their status by actively preventing others from becoming wealthy, thus others cannot join their group and dilute their economic power (as a percentage of the country's economy). They maintain their big fish in a little pond status by making sure the pond stays small. A side-effect of this repression is that it keeps the average citizen stuck in poverty. This repression results in the average GDP per capita in those countries (a measure of each person's productivity) being mired down around $10k/yr (Mexico = $10,300/yr, Brazil = $11,200/yr).. The wealthy there won't allow it to go any higher. And because they control most of the wealth, most of the economic activity in those countries is wealthy people buying and selling to each other.

It can't happen in the U.S. because the wealthy here haven't been an exclusive group for a long time. Most people in the U.S. lead fully productive lives (by modern standards - $53k/yr GDP per capita). Consequently, most of the economic activity in the U.S. is from average (and even low) income people buying stuff. If you look at the IRS income tax statistics, a full 44% of gross individual income goes to people making less than $100k/yr. 68% by people making less than $200k/yr. If you say "the wealthy" comprises anyone making over $1 million/yr, they account for less than 10% of U.S. income.

This means that in order for those U.S. millionaires (and billionaries) to stay millionaires, people with lower income must maintain their income so they can continue to buy the stuff that the millionaires are selling. If everyone but the millionaires in Mexico and Brazil lost their jobs, it wouldn't affect most of those millionaires' incomes since they're mostly selling to each other. If everyone but the millionaires in the U.S. lost their jobs, the millionaires would panic because 90% of their income comes from selling to those now-unemployed people.

If the U.S. were to fall into brutal repression like Central and South America with widescale loss of jobs, it would result in about an 80% reduction in GDP per capita, meaning those millionaires would lose about 80% of their income. They don't want that. They want to see the lower and middle classes continue to make decent incomes almost as much as the lower and middle classes do. If widescale job losses were to begin among the middle and lower classes in the U.S., the wealthy would start to panic as the loss of customers affected their bottom lines. And you'd see all income classes in the U.S. working together to figure out ways to get those people employed again.

You can see the same thing if you compare GDP (PPP) per capita - the mean - vs the median income. The mean spreads the income of the wealthy across all citizens, while the median tells you how much income the 50th percentile citizen is making. The ratio of the two gives you a sense how much the economy is skewed towards the wealthy. For the U.S., these numbers are a mean of $56,115.7 vs a median of $30,960. A 1.81 ratio. For Mexico it's $16,988.4* mean vs $5,160 median, a 3.29 ratio, indicating a much larger share of each worker's productivity is diverted into income for the wealthy. (And for comparison, since everyone seems to like comparing the U.S. with the Scandinavian countries, the ratios for Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Demark are 1.63, 1.79, 1.72, and 1.77.)

* (Yes $16,988.4 is different from $10,300. Difference between nominal and PPP GDP.)

People should consider asking for an IP PIN to help prevent an additional vector of identity theft

https://www.irs.gov/individual...

by signing up at the above (well in advance of the return due date, it's likely too late to ask for one for your 2016 return), it essentially functions as a password for your return

For part A I'd recommend you read the conversation in context. Following more than a single post is really not that hard for someone who believes they are smart.

For part B, bullshit. You do realize that you can find all Federal Tax forms on IRS dating back well over a century right (example)? Spouse were not listed on Federal Income Tax forms until 1944, and marital status was not listed in the Federal forms at all. Who was President? Democratic FDR, and the reason was to help population growth after WW II.Deductions for individuals were not part of our taxes until 1958, which again was to help with population growth during the cold war.

Part C, another fabrication like part B. I have no idea how someone believes a Will is the same thing as Taxes, but then again you are 0 for 2 and don't seem to be bright.

Read your last sentence in a good shiny mirror.

They have. https://www.irs.gov/businesses...

Kinda like the U.S. policy that U.S. citizens have to pay U.S. taxes on income earned abroad could hypothetically cause a U.S. citizen to owe more than 100% in taxes

No it can't. You claim a Foreign Tax Credit for any income tax paid to a foreign government and it's deducted from your tax payable in the US. For example if your US tax rate was 35% and your foreign tax rate was 30%, you would pay 30% to the foreign government and then 5% (35% - 30%) to the US government.

See: IRS Publication 514 https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pd...

Just lest ingress the cost each year.

I'm sure you thought you were making sense when you typed this sentence.

If you cannot afford it well then we'll fine you.

Nope. If you cannot afford it, well, that's why the plan was expanding Medicaid, except in the states that refused to do it(at the behest of Republican governors and legislatures, so blame them), and providing tax credits(Like these. You do know that is how the law actually worked is very different from the fervent ravings in your favorite right-wing book of doctrine, right?

The only people who were going to get fined were those who refused to get coverage AND had the money for it, but still expected emergency room support.

Costly and expensive emergency room support.

And those that had good insurance. Guess what? Had to give those up to get worse coverage. So far my deductible has increased and what insurance pays out is almost a joke anymore.

Sure man, and then Obama came and he shot your dog, didn't he? You do know your claims are factually deficient, and amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric right?

Why don't you just rant some more about his birth certificate, and how he's forcing you to take birth control pills?

Pretty good. Let me add this.

I googled "contractor vs. employee" and came up with an interesting link on the USA IRS website.

TL/DR: Common Law specifies three rules that determine whether someone is an employee:

(1) Behavioral (Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?)
(2) Financial (Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.))
(3) Type of Relationship (Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?)

It seems clear that Uber drivers are employees under rule 1. It's less clear whether they are under rule 2, but on balance it seems that the drivers are employees under this rule as well. And as for rule 3, obviously Uber does everything it can to keep the type of relationship from looking like that of employer-employee, but maybe some aspects of it still qualify here as well.

The definition of "employee" varies by country. But in the U.S., the distinction is based more or less on who dictates how the work is done. If you give a person a task to complete, and the person is free to complete the task when and how they want (subject to a deadline and requirements), then they are a contractor. But if you dictate how or when the person has to work, then they are an employee.

So it's not just about dictating work hours. A good analogue is workers from a temp agency. The temp agency matches up temporary jobs with temporary workers, but the workers are considered employees of the temp agency. If they tried to act like Craigslist or eBay - simply providing a place for people looking for temp work and people looking to hire temp workers to meet up, and took a cut of the payment - they'd probably be classified as contractors. But when you start to meddle with the individual transactions (creating uniform pricing, dictating standards for worker behavior, etc) you're starting to encroach on employee territory.

What's horrible about it? Consider that 250,000 rupees represents some 6 years worth of median annual household income in India. In the U.S. that would be equivalent to someone showing up with 300,000 dollars in cash. The IRS is definitely interested in significantly lower amounts than this.

Except the more control that Uber puts over drivers, the more likely they are to cross from "contractor" to "employee". Heck, feel free to check with the government

Except this is not behavioural control. This is code of conduct and abiding by a company's code of conduct is a standard part of any contract. If this is your argument for considering them employees it is damn weak, there are far better examples in Uber's conduct for this.

Except the more control that Uber puts over drivers, the more likely they are to cross from "contractor" to "employee". Heck, feel free to check with the government

BZZZT!

99.9% of the time, the entity giving the gift pays the tax on the gift. https://www.irs.gov/businesses...

If Alphabet handed the employees a gift and the employee then handed it to a non-profit for donation, the employee would be able to deduct it and not pay tax for receiving the gift.

In this case, the donation is made in the name of the employees, automatically, on their behalf, without their input. So Alphabet pays tax on the gift (I guarantee you they're not actually doing so, but that's beside the point), then Alphabet makes the donation in the employee's name, then the employee gets to deduct it. Tax liability lies with Alphabet. The ability to deduct it lies with the employee who "made" the donation.

No, Alphabet doesn't pay tax on the gift - it's a gift to a charity, so it's deductible.
Only if they had given gifts to the employee and the employee gave it to charity could the employee deduct it.
Alphabet would still get to deduct $25 per person on a gift to the employees.

If they would have gotten a $1000 device, they would have had to pay taxes on the $1000. They didn't get a $1000 device and so they didn't have to pay taxes on it. Same as if they received $1000, then gave it away, they wouldn't have had to pay taxes on the $1000...

Corporations get to write of that $1000 dollars whether they donate it to charity or pay an employee.

Stick to TurboTax, please.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses...

https://www.irs.gov/businesses...

If Alphabet is actually donating shit in the employee's names, then the employee can deduct it.
Alphabet pays the tax on the gift to the employee (see the link). The employee donates the gift and deducts it.

The fact that the employee never received the gift directly doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not Alphabet is donating on its employee's behalf, as stated in the summary, or if it's donating in its own name.

The giver (Alphabet) pays the gift tax, not the recipient (the employee). The donor (the employee) gets to deduct it.

BZZZT!

99.9% of the time, the entity giving the gift pays the tax on the gift. https://www.irs.gov/businesses...

If Alphabet handed the employees a gift and the employee then handed it to a non-profit for donation, the employee would be able to deduct it and not pay tax for receiving the gift.

In this case, the donation is made in the name of the employees, automatically, on their behalf, without their input. So Alphabet pays tax on the gift (I guarantee you they're not actually doing so, but that's beside the point), then Alphabet makes the donation in the employee's name, then the employee gets to deduct it. Tax liability lies with Alphabet. The ability to deduct it lies with the employee who "made" the donation.

Planet 1991, apparently.

The exemption expired at the end of 1991. Apparently congress didn't renew it.

You can view historical IRS forms here:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pr...

Looks like students can no longer check "exempt" on their W4.

Students are income tax exempt, too.

So, very, very wrong.

Internship income is earned income as surely as work income is earned income. You may be confusing this alleged student exemption with an exemption for dependents who earn less than the amount of the standard deduction in a year (currently $6300). Which these interns would blow past in the first month.

Students are income tax exempt, too.

So, very, very wrong.

Internship income is earned income as surely as work income is earned income. You may be confusing this alleged student exemption with an exemption for dependents who earn less than the amount of the standard deduction in a year (currently $6300). Which these interns would blow past in the first month.

Students are income tax exempt, too.

Bullshit. https://www.irs.gov/help-resou...

Yet, the IRS (a Federal agency) has created rules for them to be able to report income and pay their taxes.

The overriding rule of the IRS is income (or revenue in this case) is defined as money derived from any source, unless explicitly exempted by law. As said just below you, the IRS makes no differentiation between money made by some guy working in a cube or the drug dealer on the corner. So long as both report how much money they brought in, and pay taxes on that money, the IRS is satisfied.

And no, I'm not kidding about paying taxes on money from dealing drugs. Read for yourself.

Therefore, the IRS expects these shops to pay their federal taxes just like the states expect them to pay their state taxes. There is no contradiction.

Yet, the IRS (a Federal agency) has created rules for them to be able to report income and pay their taxes.

The overriding rule of the IRS is income (or revenue in this case) is defined as money derived from any source, unless explicitly exempted by law. As said just below you, the IRS makes no differentiation between money made by some guy working in a cube or the drug dealer on the corner. So long as both report how much money they brought in, and pay taxes on that money, the IRS is satisfied.

And no, I'm not kidding about paying taxes on money from dealing drugs. Read for yourself.

Therefore, the IRS expects these shops to pay their federal taxes just like the states expect them to pay their state taxes. There is no contradiction.

Depends on how it's used:
https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsro...

The notice provides that virtual currency is treated as property for U.S. federal tax purposes. General tax principles that apply to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Among other things, this means that:

        Wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer on a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll taxes.
        Payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable and self-employment tax rules generally apply. Normally, payers must issue Form 1099.
        The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer.
        A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property.

You seem to have most of it right:

https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsro...

In some environments, virtual currency operates like “real” currency -- i.e., the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance -- but it does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.

The notice provides that virtual currency is treated as property for U.S. federal tax purposes. General tax principles that apply to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Among other things, this means that:

        Wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer on a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll taxes.
        Payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable and self-employment tax rules generally apply. Normally, payers must issue Form 1099.
        The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer.
        A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property.

What is the difference between this and the IRS asking for banks to release 3 years of all of its customers records, because cash is anonymous?

The difference is that the IRS defines bitcoin as being property.

Barter is taxable. Gifts are not.

Bitcoin and other electronic currencies are "property" (see e.g. https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsro... )

Now the IRS doesn't automatically monitor all bank accounts: see e.g. here: http://peopleof.oureverydaylif... for

The IRS can however, force banks, foreign exchanges, and now electronic currency exchange houses, to disclose the identity of those engaged in transactions. It can do this to any individual or corporation if they decide to audit them: see here: http://www.libra.tech/blog/how... As far as I know, criminal law does not necessarily apply. A mere administrative decision to audit someone (could even be selected at random) is enough. See https://www.irs.gov/businesses... and here http://www.investopedia.com/as...

Of course, a complete regulatory framework for bitcoin and lookalikes hasn't yet materialised. According to this post: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/ar... it took about a decade to establish it for derivatives, so one might expect the same for bitcoin.

So what we see is the IRS seeing how far it can go, but they seem to have a very strong case. They're not auditing anyone in particular, but merely tracing a web of payments. Could be an audit. And consider the alternative. Suppose for example that bitcoin exchanges need not disclose the names of participants in transactions on request. You'd have an instant on-shore tax evasion mechanism ... and that is against the general thrust of tax law in general, not to mention common sense.

So I'm afraid the IRS will get its way ... and will go even further. Block chains are electronic records of transactions. Therefore potentially every last blockchain involving electronic currency transactions could become subject of disclosure to the IRS.

Bitcoin and other electronic currencies are "property" (see e.g. https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsro... )

Now the IRS doesn't automatically monitor all bank accounts: see e.g. here: http://peopleof.oureverydaylif... for

The IRS can however, force banks, foreign exchanges, and now electronic currency exchange houses, to disclose the identity of those engaged in transactions. It can do this to any individual or corporation if they decide to audit them: see here: http://www.libra.tech/blog/how... As far as I know, criminal law does not necessarily apply. A mere administrative decision to audit someone (could even be selected at random) is enough. See https://www.irs.gov/businesses... and here http://www.investopedia.com/as...

Of course, a complete regulatory framework for bitcoin and lookalikes hasn't yet materialised. According to this post: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/ar... it took about a decade to establish it for derivatives, so one might expect the same for bitcoin.

So what we see is the IRS seeing how far it can go, but they seem to have a very strong case. They're not auditing anyone in particular, but merely tracing a web of payments. Could be an audit. And consider the alternative. Suppose for example that bitcoin exchanges need not disclose the names of participants in transactions on request. You'd have an instant on-shore tax evasion mechanism ... and that is against the general thrust of tax law in general, not to mention common sense.

So I'm afraid the IRS will get its way ... and will go even further. Block chains are electronic records of transactions. Therefore potentially every last blockchain involving electronic currency transactions could become subject of disclosure to the IRS.

So, I need to declare when I give property to another person on my W2.

Well, yes, but not on the W2.

Who pays the gift tax?
The donor is generally responsible for paying the gift tax. Under special arrangements the donee may agree to pay the tax instead. Please visit with your tax professional if you are considering this type of arrangement.

What is considered a gift?
Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration (measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return.

What can be excluded from gifts?
The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
Gifts to your spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses...

Oh, right, its property now, right IRS?

https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsro...

Because they have a mandate to manage property that is not theirs, obtained with currency.. I mean, "property" that was not created or backed by the federal reserve bank, and no matter what nation if extraction the individuals involved in the exchange of property are from, they need to perform excise on it, right?

So, I need to declare when I give property to another person on my W2. Such as when I give a Christmas present, or give blankets and coats to starving families.

Obviously this is rational, and essential for proper governance.

Seriously. If you think you're a contractor and are rejecting my assertion here but you still have to report to an office at a specific time determined by your employer, you're a sucker.

Close, but not quite. Location and time of work is one of multiple criteria if a person is an employee or an independent contractor. Officially IRS Rules, but you can also search for numerous checklists academic school and others have created to simplify things. As I recall, there are something like 12 criteria, and they look for a preponderance of evidence whether you are a contractor or if you are an employee.

Some other questions are whose equipment do you use, and do you deliver hours or do you deliver products.

• Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
• Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
• Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

The questions (from Synergistech Communications, which also provides additional information), with the answers in bold based on my understanding of how Uber works:

1. Are you required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how the work is to be done? Yes
2. Does your client provide you with training to enable you to perform a job in a particular method or manner? No
3. Are the services you provide integrated into your client's business operation? Yes
4. Must the services be rendered by you personally? Yes
5. Do you have the capability to hire, supervise, or pay assistants to help you in performing the services under contract? Yes
6. Is the relationship between you and the person or company you perform services for a continuing relationship? No
7. Who sets the hours of work? The driver
8. Are you required to devote your full time to the person or company you perform services for? No
9. Is the work performed at the place of business of the potential employer? No
10. Who directs the order or sequence in which the work must be done? Uber
11. Are you required to provide regular written or oral reports to your client? No
12. What is the method of payment — hourly, commission or by the job? By the job
13. Are your business and/or traveling expenses reimbursed? No
14. Who furnishes tools and materials used in providing services? The driver and Uber
15. Do you have a significant investment in facilities used to perform services? It depends
16. Can you realize both a profit or a loss? Yes
17. Can you work for a number of firms at the same time? Yes
18. Do you make your services available to the general public? It depends
19. Are you subject to dismissal for reasons other than nonperformance of contract specifications? Unknown
20. Can you terminate your relationship without incurring a liability for failure to complete a job? Yes

By my count the Uber-Driver relationship does not pass 4 of the tests and two more are borderline. The key point that makes the relationship tip towards employee is that the driver has no direct price control (they cannot quote a price to perform the service).

It wouldn't say it's IMPOSSIBLE for Google to know the SHA1 hash (torrent URL) of infected files.

If you're just trying to make the same tired argument about unlawful pirate sites that courts have struck down again and again, you might enjoy this page:
http://famguardian.org/publica...

But keep in mind, believing such utter BS *will* end up with you in prison. See:
https://www.irs.gov/tax-profes...

Was about to say the same. Donations only reduce your adjusted gross income and can't exceed 50% of AGI, so you can never be tax-free for the year solely from donations since your AGI will still be a positive number.

He may or may not need to pay taxes depending on how they handle this transaction. The IRS FAQ said that usually the donor generally responds for the taxes, but in this case, it may not be so and he would have to pay taxes on the money's worth of the miles he received.

W2 vs 1099 classification essentially uses duck-typing, so they are or aren't contractors if and only if a sufficient number of the IRS Rules for employee classification agree. Excerpted from link:

Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:

1. Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
2. Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
3. Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.

The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination.

You're an idiot. Your use of a broad brush to portray every American as ' THE FUCKING UGLY AMERICAN' is more a painting of you then one of us.

And you base almost everything you say on your complete misunderstanding of the US Tax Code. Read this. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pd...

You talk about brain drain and wind up with another mess on your hands. First you say the tax code prohibits Americans from working or studying abroad. OK, wrong but just for a minute I'll go along. Then you describe this same situation as the perfect scenario for brain drain to occur. Maybe you'd care to explain how a country that doesn't allow citizens to work or travel abroad goes on to become one that suffers brain drain. I know what's coming next. Please include some cites to prove that students who study abroad are smarter than those who don't. Or more inventive. Or entrepreneurial. Or more well rounded. Yeah, I need some cites. Only because you made such a debacle of your original theory about the US going to shit.

Your ideas are cleverly ignorant. You act as if a scientist would automatically become better if he meant a few scientists from other countries.
Hmm? You do have some facts to back up your fiction, right?

And tell me, what does a country which sends it students to another country to learn and earn suffer from if it isn't brain drain?

And then do us a favor and shut the fuck up. You just did Brexit. There is a reason why there are 30,000 people in France waiting to get into the UK. The word that comes to mind to describe the situation is bigotry.

Say what you want about Trump. The facts are that he has never enjoyed a poll where his approval rating was anywhere near as high as his disapproval rating. You rant about Trump and seem to forget that we just elected a black person twice and are on track to elect the first female. No, she won't be like Thatcher. Thank God.

Next time, before you rant about the US being insular,take a good look at your country first. Maybe you should first ask yourself why your country is still 87% white. Our fucking whitest neighborhoods aren't that white! You want insular? Yeah I've got some. In the UK, apparently being white isn't enough. You have to be the right kind of white. As in non-Polish white. But maybe that's just the boys being pranky. Just trying to keep things organized. Well, maybe a little insular. And a little racist.

No a better example of a nation/kingdom being insular would be the 'classic' example. Brexit. Not much to add to that is there? Calling the US insular in its attitudes is lau
ghable in contrast to actually voting on the issue.

That latter statement is untrue in the US. You must pay taxes both to the foreign government, and to the US government.

Note the verbiage, and qualifications required to get ANY KIND of exclusion, and the specificity of that exclusion, as defined in US tax code below.

https://www.irs.gov/individual...

Apple's behavior here is very much a double standard compared to the average citizen.

Below $100,000k your foreign earnings are tax-exempt.

That latter statement is untrue in the US. You must pay taxes both to the foreign government, and to the US government.

Note the verbiage, and qualifications required to get ANY KIND of exclusion, and the specificity of that exclusion, as defined in US tax code below.

https://www.irs.gov/individual...

Apple's behavior here is very much a double standard compared to the average citizen.