Slashdot Mirror

Actually it would have been beneficial to pay for it on a mileage basis. If the government paid mileage, then that means Buzz would have been responsible for the vehicle and all maintenance costs related to it. The Apollo 11 mission was 953,054 miles long (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html).

1969 mileage reimbursement rate was 15 cents a mile ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pri... ). If the government could have gotten away with only paying ~$143k for the transportation costs, it would have been a bargain.

It isn't a tax, as in it's not a line-item on your tax bill

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...

Health care: individual responsibility (see instructions) Full-year coverage []

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...

Health care: individual responsibility.
You must either:
Indicate on line 61 that you, your
spouse (if filing jointly), and your dependents
had health care coverage
throughout 2014,
Claim an exemption from the
health care coverage requirement for
some or all of 2014 and attach Form
8965, or
Make a shared responsibility payment
if, for any month in 2014, you,
your spouse (if filing jointly), or your
dependents did not have coverage and
do not qualify for a coverage exemption.

See the instructions for line 61 and Form
8965 for more information.

There is your ACA tax-form line item.

It isn't a tax, as in it's not a line-item on your tax bill

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...

Health care: individual responsibility (see instructions) Full-year coverage []

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...

Health care: individual responsibility.
You must either:
Indicate on line 61 that you, your
spouse (if filing jointly), and your dependents
had health care coverage
throughout 2014,
Claim an exemption from the
health care coverage requirement for
some or all of 2014 and attach Form
8965, or
Make a shared responsibility payment
if, for any month in 2014, you,
your spouse (if filing jointly), or your
dependents did not have coverage and
do not qualify for a coverage exemption.

See the instructions for line 61 and Form
8965 for more information.

There is your ACA tax-form line item.

>>not how much they should sell it for to recoup their costs and make a reasonable profit, but by how much they thought they could/should get

>That's literally the definition of capitalism. You know, that thing our entire way of life is based on.

Maybe YOUR life, but not everyone's. Ever heard of "gouging"? That's where you have gained, through conniving, honest effort, or circumstance, control of something that other people need to live and you charge a very high price for it. Like water post-earthquake. A "good" capitalist would sell water for $100/bottle or more and make a very tidy profit off the desperately thirsty. Fortunately, many people are also guided by morality and would limit their mark-ups on vital commodities like this post-disaster, either taking a loss, selling the commodity at cost, or selling with a reasonable profit like 10%, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE PEOPLE OVER A BARREL. I'd much prefer capitalism tempered by some humanity and morality, thank you very much, than the pure psychotic ideal.

I would not have any complaint at all with the drug company if they had set their prices based on "this is our development cost for the drug, these are our costs for developing failed drugs, +30% profit margin." Not "let's extract as much money as we can from the people we have over a barrel."

>As it stands, this will happen in the late 2020s when sofosbuvir goes off patent. Currently, it is licensed for generic manufacture in 90 developing countries, covering a patient population of 100 million.

In late 2020's instead of RIGHT NOW. D'you realize how much human misery that delay means? Is that really a good route to take, so that a company and their shareholders can make 1000% profit rather than 30%? If they truly did base their price based on recovery of costs and a reasonable profit, then I apologize to the company, however, they magically dropped their prices by huge fractions when the PR hit the fan, which I doubt they'd be willing to do if they were losing money off the new dramatically lowered (yet still very high) prices.

>Currently, it is licensed for generic manufacture in 90 developing countries, covering a patient population of 100 million.

How VERY KIND it is for that company to lower the price to affordability for foreigners while screwing over their own countrymen by charging rates here that challenge even the deepest US pockets. How truly admirable. I mean, wow, this might actually mean that someone in Africa gets the drug that people in America can't afford because their insurance won't cover it, because of the high cost here! I'm sure their decision to lower the prices for foreigners was driven by the realization that they wouldn't get paid their US asking price in most of the world because it couldn't possibly be afforded.

As for raising the NIH budget from $30B to $150B, how about we don't indulge in pre-emptive wars of choice, and take the $2T or more saved and apply a small fraction of that to the NIH? Oh right, that money's already gone. How about the IRS collects more of the tax legitimately owed the Government but not paid? That's $400B right there. Done! NIH budged quintupled! (and $280B more available to say, pay down debt.)

http://www.irs.gov/uac/The-Tax...

--PM

There's a more specific form for this exact situation - Form SS-8.

You can challenge the Independent Contractor status by filing Form SS-8 with the IRS.

EIC doesn't do that for kids right out of high school unless they've got a baby. It's literally illegal -- one of tests for EIC with no qualifying children is that you have to be 25. It doesn't really do that even if you have a kid, because it maxes out at $2k per kid.

The last 30 years or so have seen massive economic growth, but none at low levels. At what point, precisely, are the low-level people allowed to say "Hey this pie is big enough for me to have a piece?" without everyone else explaining that in theory everything that's happened to them in the past three decadses is impossible, and therefore changing economic policy on the basis of those three decades is stupid.

...what's the question?

The big question is whether state misreporting of employees and IC's is a big deal. Anonymous poster sees gross hypocrisy by his government and is told by legal counsel that it's not a big deal, wants others to weigh in so that he can better conceptualize how he should feel about this--he's looking to third parties for feedback on something that strikes him as morally suspect and affects his life. That's actually an incredibly healthy, rational, and unusual attitude.

Is it a big deal? Yes and no. It's common to have people misrepresent employees as ICs in order to avoid the legal responsibilities of employment--that's *why* the IRS and various states crack down on it. So it's certainly not an *unusual* deal. And if you're making bank, it may not affect you much personally.

But it may affect a lower-income worker who gets treated the same way by the state and is denied overtime benefits, or the woman who's discriminated against by the state's hiring process and finds it much harder to sue, or the corrections officer who doesn't get a pension, for example. So there's some reason to call the state out on it for the public good.

There's *also* a strong argument that they should be called out on it because *they should have to put up with* the employment rules everyone else follows. They're the ones who change the rules, so they should experience having to live with them.

So there are reasons to responsibly disclose, but not much personal benefit to you. You risk a whistleblower sign over your head for the rest of your career unless you do it intelligently. You could sort of go a middle-ground, where you don't go to the press, for example, but do include a note on your taxes that the state has deliberately misclassified you as an independent contractor as part of a systemic process that affects many thousands of employees. I have no idea if the IRS would do anything with it (I'm guessing not), but you would be reporting it. Ah, here we go, the IRS has a way to report fraud:

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals...

Typically "when is a contractor an employee?" hinges on three primary factors:

1. Who sets the hours? Company? Employee. Worker? Contractor.

2. Paid by the task? Contractor. Paid by the hour? Employee.

3. EIN on the 1099? Contractor. Social Security Number on the 1099? Employee.

The IRS has a page describing the myriad other factors that are considered, but if answers to the three above all agree with each other, that's generally what you are.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/...

And even that didn't work. Quotation marks in links are apparently very difficult to use. To get to work you'll have to type in the first bit (ie: http://www.irs.gov/uac/A- ), then copy the “Qualifying-Child” and paste it into your browser. Or just google "qualifying child" irs.gov.

Here's the webpage the IRS has on qualifying children. It includes quitation marks, so apparently it can;t be used as a link on Slashdot:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/A-“Qualifying-Child”

It's not a computer program. It's a human document. Plenty of terms with well-established legal meanings on one context can mean something subtly different in another context. As a tax pro, for example, a big part of my job is to tell people which credits their kid counts as a "qualifying child" for. Same kid, same legal vocabulary, but if he lives with his mom and she's signed over the exemption for Dad the kid's a qualifying child for an extra personal exemption on his return but is a qualifying child on her return for daycare costs.

In this case it's pretty clear that Congress meant for the Federal Exchange to be a back-up to the State Exchanges, and that if treating it as a distinct entity from the state exchanges would totally fuck up the law then it follows that Congress's imprecisions should be worked around.

If it's that obvious, why did Delaware decide to set up no-state-level exchange and use the Federal one? Why did Oregon decide to give up on their Exchange, and use the Federal one? It beggars belief that these two states which voted for Obama actually wanted to lock their people out from the subsidies.

Federal laws all have confusing language. The IRS, for example, had to set up a page specifically devoted to explaining the many related and subtly different meanings of the phrase "qualifying child." If you actually read the definitions section, it's pretty clear that the Federal Exchange is supposed to substitute for the State Exchange where neccesary, and thewrefore it fullfills the role of "Exchange established by the State" perfectly well.

Note: I run a nonprofit organization and have a different perspective (+ bias!) about donations.

[1] Generally, I think it's best to begin as you already have by identifying those causes which are most important to you.

[2] Next, ask yourself if you're interested in pursuing a global / regional / local approach? The local org might focus on issues which matter to you - and it might be directly related to issues in your neighborhood. On the other hand "big" issues like constitutional rights might only be addressed at the national level.

Also, are you looking for a large well-established nonprofit or a small up-start where your money will have a more significant impact? For example a donation of $1,000 to the Red Cross will certainly be welcomed but likely not celebrated. If instead you made that $1,000 donation to a nonprofit running on a shoestring budget of $20,000 a year then you've just increased their budget by 5% - which is definitely cause for celebration!

[3] By now you should have at least a handful of charities which meet your criteria and can begin validating their effectiveness, transparency, and legal status.

A good place to start is GuideStar ( http://guidestar.org/ ). You will get information on IRS status, financials, mission statements as well as reviews. CharityNavigator ( http://charitynavigator.org/ ) is another great resource and they provide independent ratings of charities. One important distinction though is that CharityNavigator focuses on larger nonprofits (total revenue must be > $1million in the previous fiscal year).

My nonprofit has a listing with CharityNavigator but no rating because we are (much much much) too small. On the other hand at GuideStar we have a "Gold" rating based on the amount of information which we have shared with them. So either of these are great resources but my bias is showing when I lean toward GuideStar.

If for some reason you'd rather not use either of these sites I would suggest that at a minimum that you verify that the nonprofit has a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS and that it has not been revoked. You can search for orgs by name or EIN here: http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

For more on charity scams here's some helpful info from the FTC: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/a...

[4] Once you have narrowed your list down to 1 or 2 then you can decide if there's a specific funding mechanism which appeals most to you (e.g. PayPal, cash, check, bitcoin). Some donation methods can take 5% (or more!) of the donation off the top before the nonprofit gets the donation.

For example, PayPal charges nonprofits a reduced fee of 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction (details here: https://www.paypal.com/webapps...). Also, BitPay does not charge us anything for bitcoin donations through our site.

Hopefully by going through this you will wind up with at least one charity which meets all of your criteria and can then just confirm their status in the future without going through all of these steps every time. Thank you on behalf of nonprofit organizations everywhere for supporting their efforts!

Shameless Plug
Of course I have to say something about my nonprofit's work: Jennifer Ann's Group is a nonprofit charity preventing teen dating violence. Our most successful program is producing video games to help young people, parents, and educators learn more about this issue and how to seek help if needed. We have produced 20+ video games through an annual video g

You're really confused here. That';s not surprising. This is a confusing area of law, and unlike every other area of law I have ever studied there are literally no hard and fast rules. There are no tests. there are testish principles, which re frequently combined with common sense, but if you think that there's actually some way to prove 100% beyond a doubt whether anyone anywhere in this country is definitively a contractor or an employee you're wrong.

I strongly suspect, for example, that if you hired a contractor to put in a roof and you specified not only the kind of roof you wanted him to build, but the methods used to build it, he'd be able to sue you and get employee status. He'd certainly have a better shot at winning then a lot of people who everyone thinks "of course they're not contractors," like say a star Doctor on a medical team who gets to write his own schedule and break all the damn rules because he's the only heart specialist willing to work in Akron.

To quote the IRS:

In determining whether the person providing service is an employee or an independent contractor, all information that provides evidence of the degree of control and independence must be considered.

Common Law Rules

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?

Note that eBay sellers are not controlled in HOW they do their jobs. eBay has no control over their financial lives -- they probably use Paypal, but they could easily set up their own credit card contract, so eBay doesn't actually force them to use it's system. And there are no written provisions involving benefits or future work. It does force them to use a computer with somewhat modern software*, so it does somewhat fulfill the first testish thingamabob.

Also note that WHAT is done in the job is totally irrelevant. If you tell your contractor to fix your roof in a way that can only be done by one method; you have not actually told him to use that method. You did not order him to use a torch down, physics did. In theory he could create a new method to do the same thing and get paid for fulfilling the contract. Since he probably provides his own tools, has his own bank account, etc. then you also do not control his finances, so the second testish thing is also not filled. Since he only works for the duration of the contract the third is also not filled.

OTOH an Uber driver is penalized if he doesn't take a certain number of rides, and he has to accept most of the ones that come on his screen or his future work is jeopardized. This means he fulfills testish thing-a-thing more then either the contractor or the eBay seller, but not as much as most employees. Since Uber handles all the business stuff, Including leasing lots of them their cars, and insisting that they register the cars as personal vehicles (rather then commercial as the law seems to require), Uber is gonna get it's ass kicked on testish thingamabob 2 for a lot of these guys, but not others (ie: the guy who bought his car with a business loan, works for three companies, is using a registered corporation for all his Uber dealings, etc.).

The third test gets interesting. Since further work for Uber is expected there's a continuing relationship. But there's no pension or health benefits.

*I suspect XP, or a LINUX distro, with the most recent possible browser on a high-end Pentium would actually work, but it would probably suck ass, and I don't have such a machine to test with.

Except that you missed a few huge points dipshit. The government requires that anyone filing self employment taxes will have to have Form 1080s from at least two different companies.

This is false. You seem to have just pulled a bunch of bullshit out of your ass, because nothing you said is correct. Just to start, there is no IRS for 1080. And, no, you don't need to report earnings from more than one company, there is no such requirement. I won't bother pointing out all the rest of the errors in your post, just a link to the IRS instructions for self-employed individuals and small businesses.

Does it make sense to do all of that energy efficiency stuff upfront? Or spread it out the installation over the years to maximize, uh, tax incentives?

It's hard to find a good resource... need updated versions of http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroo... that include the plug-in electric vehicle chargers and solar cells.

There are lots of weird restrictions... for example, you can get some energy efficiency credit for installing sunroofs in the ceiling only if they are attached to a home HVAC automation system so it adjusts the blinds and/or vents in concert with the air conditioning. Installing a manually-operated sunroof/blinds doesn't qualify!

We just bought a duplex built in the early 70s with mostly original (high quality but not high efficiency) appliances, and we're trying to budget out home improvements for the next 10 years. The roof needs to be replaced in the next 3 years, so we'd like to have enough saved to do a modest solar panel / sunroof install by then, but they'd probably wouldn't make much of a dent in our electric bill until we replace the appliances :P . Maybe an electric vehicle charger is in our future too, not for the next car but perhaps the one after that, but it's hard to plan for taking advantage of tax incentives that far into the future :/

Also have to improve our water efficiency somehow... we also live in a water rich region, but the water bill is easily the most expensive utility because the sewage / runoff water treatment is astronomical. It is nice to have urban lakes that are safe for swimming, though, so it's worth it.

It's not illegal to steal bits.

Tell that to the RIAA and MPAA, and those asshats in Germany. Oh, and the City of London Police...

I'm not sure now stealing crypto-currencies can be a crime. They're not money. They're hardly property. They don't have any real value.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroo...

In the USA barter hours are taxable
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/t...

I think the best illustration for this is what the IRS will let you deduct for mileage.

The standard rate is $0.56/mi, which brings your total cost for driving from SF to LA up to almost $215.

what you ignore while you talk about capitol gains is they already paid taxes on that income. why should they pay again??? let alone at a higher rate???

That is absolutely false. From the definition of capital gains:

When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount you sell it for is a capital gain or a capital loss. Generally, an asset's basis is its cost to the owner, but if you received the asset as a gift or inheritance, refer to Topic 703 for information about your basis. You have a capital gain if you sell the asset for more than your basis. You have a capital loss if you sell the asset for less than your basis. Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, are not deductible.

You are not re-taxed on your original earnings (the "basis"). You are taxed on the growth in value or gain (hence the name).

From:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.

I'm really getting tired of shooting down your false assertions, guys. Revoking tax exempt status for churches would only revoke tax exempt status for CHURCHES!!!!

That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all.

Umm, yes it does:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.

If only I had mod points...

Leaving aside the problems this would likely pose under American law, in the United States it's generally the case that non-profit corporations are not taxed at any level of government.

How does paying taxes keep you or the church from freely exercising a religion? Please use as many big words as you like. I am college educated. Keep in mind that no one is talking about taxing churches differently than any other for-profit organization, and if you think a church is non-profit you've been hitting the sacramental wine a bit too heavily. And you better read this before you say something else that isn't true and parrot the other idiots in this thread.

From:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.

That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all.

Umm, yes it does:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.

That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all. So, no, churches are in no way tax exempt because they're churches. They're tax exempt because they meet the requirements of 501(c)3- just like the Sierra Club and the Humane Society.

I just googled for the requirement on IRS... They "separate" the link into 2 -- for charity ( http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&... ) and for churches & religious ( http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&... ). Interesting eh?

That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all. So, no, churches are in no way tax exempt because they're churches. They're tax exempt because they meet the requirements of 501(c)3- just like the Sierra Club and the Humane Society.

I just googled for the requirement on IRS... They "separate" the link into 2 -- for charity ( http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&... ) and for churches & religious ( http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&... ). Interesting eh?

Has the government - beyond just the white house - been inclined to revoke any tax exempt statuses in memory?

Ummm, a little dose of reality.

It happens ALL THE TIME!

Our government does not get to define a religion.

They most certainly do define it from a tax perspective - you have to fit criteria set by our government.
See what IRS says about it.

It is not allowed to say one persons beliefs are more correct then another.

No, that would be like saying '"two plus two equals five" is more correct than "two plus two equals three"'. I certainly don't want them to utter such stupidity either.

Has the government - beyond just the white house - been inclined to revoke any tax exempt statuses in memory? I don't recall a single one. Just because Scientology has only a slightly higher public approval rate than ebola doesn't mean the government is likely to take a stand against them. Besides, even if it was revoked, they would likely just find a really good accountant / lawyer team and end up paying the same amount (or less) in taxes. Last year Prudential insurance paid no corporate income tax and received a $106 million rebate. Time Warner cable paid no taxes on $4.3B in profit, CBS no taxes on $1.8B. Scientology could probably do better on their taxes by registering as a corporation anyways.

Well, if the IRS re-examines them and decides they don't meet the definition of a religion, I don't see why they wouldn't revoke tax exempt status. They automatically revoke it if you fail to file the required reports: http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Ide...

Then maybe you should look harder. The US has tax treaties with plenty of countries.

This applies to personal income taxes, not corporate income taxes. Although corporations are nominally people in the U.S., it isn't true worldwide, and it's actually not even true in the U.S., or there would be no distinction between personal and corporate income tax rates, or, in the U.S., S-corps vs. C-corps.

Try again: find a specific treaty dealing with apportioning of corporate income tax *which caps that tax*, as a total, to the higher of two states, when apportioned between those states.

You aren't going to find it outside of some place like Myanmar (Burma), a country with which the U.S. does not treat, and which corporations will not touch with an 11 foot pole.

Then maybe you should look harder. The US has tax treaties with plenty of countries.

I would love to see the IRS enforce the rules they already have.

You do realize that the "semi-autonomous computer system" is wholly owned and operated by a large for-profit company, right? If you don't think Uber is scraping every bit as much off as any other taxi company, you're delusional.

They're also not merely "connecting" drivers with passengers, they're regulating the entire presentation and experience, down to what kind of car you can drive and who/where you're allowed and not allowed to pick up – yet somehow they employ zero drivers in spite of these IRS rules.

Captcha: fewer

The actual link to Login or Register is: http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Profess...

Following the links in TFA, it leads me to here:

https://sa.www4.irs.gov/icce-c...

I agree however, I would not even think of clicking a Get Transcripts button in order to create an IRS account.

I just went to www.irs.gov

The advice to sign up there may be reasonable, but the words 'sign up' or anything semantically similar do not appear on the front page. It's not obvious where you would go to try to sign up.

It's not https either.

Not so fast...
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Four-Th...

Reposting an older comment, because... well, why not.

I've never understood how Uber drivers (or taxi drivers, for that matter) can even remotely be considered "independent contractors". The IRS says:

You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed.

Uber tells drivers which passengers they may pick up. They restrict what model of car drivers can use. Drivers have freedom of action to choose which passenger to pick up, but are not allowed to pick up non-Uber passengers. Uber controls virtually all of the details of how the service is performed, how much is charged, and how feedback is provided; drivers are obligated to comply with Uber's regulations or risk termination. Uber's drivers are employees, by the letter and the spirit of the law. Why the IRS can't enforce this shit is beyond me.

If Haynes has monetized his channel, then any filming he does for it is commercial filming.

Not so fast. The IRS has something to say about this topic, since they draw a distinction between for-profit businesses and hobbies that happen to make a profit. Just because his videos are theoretically monetized (he has yet to actually receive any money), doesn't mean that they are a commercial venture. Given that he's operating at a loss (e.g. equipment, time, and travel costs), and that he doesn't seem to have any plans to turn things around or live off the $0 he's made so far, it's more likely that his activities constitute nothing more than a harmless hobby and wouldn't be subject to any of the regulations surrounding commercial activities.

Or, at least that's what the government organization in charge of making those distinctions seems to be saying, but if the government organization in charge of regulating airplanes thinks differently, who am I to disagree? I'll let them sort it out, since if he is engaged in commercial activities, he can itemize those expenses and write them off as business deductions.

I think the point was that there is no way for even a fairly powerful state to know that he fixed your car and you mowed his lawn, unless unless one of you decides to rat on the other, and it is in both your interests not to do so. In fact, the IRS considers barter to constitute taxable income but this is so difficult to enforce that I've never heard of a case of it happening.

Keep in mind they are only responsible for filing for taxes if the income's in the United States and their residency is 50% or more in the United States. AND YES they DO keep tabs on that kinda stuff.

Yes they do keep tabs on this sort of thing, but unfortunately US citizens regardless of their residency, are required to file taxes each and every year as long as their income is above whatever the threshold is for residents of the US - virtually every adult citizen falls under this requirment.

In addition to filing taxes, just the requirement for reporting foreign financial accounts can also be pretty onerous, with pretty low thresholds. Once you have a few years of retirement savings, you've probably hit that requirment (the aggregate value of all foreign financial accounts exceeded $10,000 at any time during the calendar year). And if you were the treasurer of your local social club or somehow had signing authority of an account that wasn't your own? That counts too.

While this is listed in the "small business" section of the IRS website - it applies to everyone:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/...

Then there is Form 8938 - slightly higher thresholds but still pretty low:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/...

If you don't file? Penalties of "up to the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of account balances; criminal penalties may also apply" if they decide it was willful.

Keep in mind they are only responsible for filing for taxes if the income's in the United States and their residency is 50% or more in the United States. AND YES they DO keep tabs on that kinda stuff.

Yes they do keep tabs on this sort of thing, but unfortunately US citizens regardless of their residency, are required to file taxes each and every year as long as their income is above whatever the threshold is for residents of the US - virtually every adult citizen falls under this requirment.

In addition to filing taxes, just the requirement for reporting foreign financial accounts can also be pretty onerous, with pretty low thresholds. Once you have a few years of retirement savings, you've probably hit that requirment (the aggregate value of all foreign financial accounts exceeded $10,000 at any time during the calendar year). And if you were the treasurer of your local social club or somehow had signing authority of an account that wasn't your own? That counts too.

While this is listed in the "small business" section of the IRS website - it applies to everyone:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/...

Then there is Form 8938 - slightly higher thresholds but still pretty low:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/...

If you don't file? Penalties of "up to the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of account balances; criminal penalties may also apply" if they decide it was willful.

You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed.

Uber tells drivers which passengers they may pick up. They restrict what model of car drivers can use. Drivers have freedom of action to choose which passenger to pick up, but are not allowed to pick up non-Uber passengers. Uber controls virtually all of the details of how the service is performed, how feedback is provided; drivers are obligated to comply with Uber's regulations or risk termination. Uber's drivers are employees, by the letter and the spirit of the law. Why the IRS can't enforce this shit is beyond me.

The new test, produced by Corgenix, a company in Broomfield, Colorado, uses antibodies to identify a specific Ebola virus protein. The list price will be about $15 per test, says Robert Garry, a hemorrhagic disease expert at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana, who helped develop the test. But discounts will be available, he says, for bulk purchases and suppliers for use in Africa.

Medicial Device Excise Tax: That's $0.345 per tax at the non-bulk rate into Uncle Sam's coffers. I wonder how much purchasing power $0.345 has in the regions hardest hit by Ebola?

Yes... but you should be doing your taxes with a spreadsheet and a PDF reader anyway, just because it works better.

You're going to have to submit a citation on this. I have already submitted citations on my part,

This isn't WIkipedia. What you have cited are partisan comments by people with an axe to grind, plus misreading (by you) of other quotes. But here is what the IRS says on the topic.

Residency Test


Your child must have lived with you, or your spouse if you file a joint return, in the United States for more than half of the year.

And for the proposition (I assume yours) that an ITIN is sufficient: No it isn't:

Yes. The taxpayer, the spouse (if filing jointly) and any qualifying child listed on Schedule EIC must have valid Social Security numbers (SSNs) valid for employment and issued by the Social Security Administration. You cannot claim EITC using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) or Adoption Taxpayer Identification Number (ATIN) issued by IRS.

Rand Paul, who you gleefully quote, was talking about fraud and his numbers are grossly exaggerated

So you are wrong about your central claim (that the amnestied aliens will be able to lawfully claim EITC for non-resident children) and wrong on the size of the problem -- even looking at fraud.

So now it's time for some ad hominem. Rand Paul is not a reliable source of information -- just look at what he recently said about vaccines. I am going to make the unsupported claim that non-resident children of amnestied aliens cannot legally get SSNs. Whatever the truth is on SSNs, it's not legal for them to claim EITC for non-resident children. You haven't provided a reliable citation for your position, while I have provided one for my position.

Go back to your tea party meeting. It's people like you who are driving the increasing disparity of wealth in this country and the stagnation of incomes for anyone except the top 0.1%.

It's clear that your comprehension skills are poor, so I should probably not expect you to understand what is really going on.

You're going to have to submit a citation on this. I have already submitted citations on my part,

This isn't WIkipedia. What you have cited are partisan comments by people with an axe to grind, plus misreading (by you) of other quotes. But here is what the IRS says on the topic.

Residency Test


Your child must have lived with you, or your spouse if you file a joint return, in the United States for more than half of the year.

And for the proposition (I assume yours) that an ITIN is sufficient: No it isn't:

Yes. The taxpayer, the spouse (if filing jointly) and any qualifying child listed on Schedule EIC must have valid Social Security numbers (SSNs) valid for employment and issued by the Social Security Administration. You cannot claim EITC using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) or Adoption Taxpayer Identification Number (ATIN) issued by IRS.

Rand Paul, who you gleefully quote, was talking about fraud and his numbers are grossly exaggerated

So you are wrong about your central claim (that the amnestied aliens will be able to lawfully claim EITC for non-resident children) and wrong on the size of the problem -- even looking at fraud.

So now it's time for some ad hominem. Rand Paul is not a reliable source of information -- just look at what he recently said about vaccines. I am going to make the unsupported claim that non-resident children of amnestied aliens cannot legally get SSNs. Whatever the truth is on SSNs, it's not legal for them to claim EITC for non-resident children. You haven't provided a reliable citation for your position, while I have provided one for my position.

Go back to your tea party meeting. It's people like you who are driving the increasing disparity of wealth in this country and the stagnation of incomes for anyone except the top 0.1%.

It's clear that your comprehension skills are poor, so I should probably not expect you to understand what is really going on.

The solution? In my opinion, the CEO of Intuit should be fired.

Let's take it further...

1. Everyone needs to be aware that Intuit lobbied to keep our taxes expensive and complicated. Their tactics included faking bullshit grass roots support for complicated filing, (more here)

2. Although they've fought it tooth and nail, federal law still requires Intuit and others to provide tax software/form filing for free for the public. You gotta make a certain minimal adjusted gross income (which is bullshit to begin with-- this threshhold was unfortunately lowered during the Bush years-- fuck you Intuit), but there are at least 14 different free options to choose from.

On the contrary, though you may treat foreign earned income as a deduction instead, taxes paid to a foreign government are usually eligible for the Foreign Tax Credit, which reduces your actual U.S. income tax on a dollar-for-dollar basis. It's generally beneficial to claim the credit instead of the deduction, so for normal people that's exactly how it works -- if you would owe $400 in tax to the U.S. based on your AGI, but you already paid $401 in tax to a foreign country, you owe no U.S. tax.