Slashdot Mirror


IRS Eyeballing Virtual World Tax Policies

Kotaku points out a Washington Post report about this year's recommendations from the national taxpayer advocate (an official who suggests improvements and updates to the tax code) which include developing clearer protocols for reporting taxable income from virtual worlds. We've previously discussed the implementation of such policies in China. Quoting the report summary (PDF): "By one estimate, about $1 billion in real dollars changed hands in computer-based environments called 'virtual worlds' in 2005. ... IRS employees have been unable to respond to taxpayer inquiries about how to report transactions associated with them. Economic activities in virtual worlds may present an emerging area of tax noncompliance, in part because the IRS has not provided guidance about whether and how taxpayers should report such activities. To improve voluntary tax compliance, the National Taxpayer Advocate recommends that the IRS issue guidance addressing how taxpayers should report economic activities in virtual worlds."

27 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. I guess it's true... by zwekiel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You truly can never escape the two inevitabilities of life: death, and taxes.

  2. Bigger Problems Then Taxes by KronosReaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If your generating enough income from "virtual worlds" that it needs to be taxed...

    Well, taxes are probably the LEAST of your problems.

    1. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by philspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the economy has just gotten THAT bad.

    2. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by drik00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not even that. The average tax-payer in the US is hit for 35-40% of earned income. How much more do they need before they realize that they're wasting money. Most of the US tax dollar is already going to non-military spending. We're a federalist republic, the federal government SHOULDN'T be paying for every program, it should be up the states on anything other than a certain couple of programs.

      J

      --
      Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    3. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by philspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're a federalist republic, the federal government SHOULDN'T be paying for every program, it should be up the states on anything other than a certain couple of programs.

      I might be more convinced by that argument, except California is currently doing its best to prove to the world that state legislatures are even more incompetent at coming up with a rational budget than the federal government. The lesson I'm getting here is that the same types of people get elected to the state and federal levels of government, but at the federal level there's some scrutiny and accountability as opposed to the state level.

      I'm not making any statement as to what SHOULD be the case, and I too am guilty of not paying attention to local politics.

    4. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What that proves is that the people of California (and just about every state) are proving to be incompetent at selecting who represents them.

      "You'll do what for me? Oooohh.... I'm voting for you!"

    5. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Lulfas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      California could return immediatly to surpluses if it stopped paying for poor states. For every dollar a Californian pays in taxes (to the federal government), they get 80 cents back. Random states like Alaska (2.40 back per dollar), Mississippi (1.45 per dollar) and such get to be welfare.

    6. Re:Bigger Problems Then Taxes by Lulfas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, newest chart I could find is http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html It shows that California (in 2005) paid $289b and received back $242b. $40billion clears up the deficit by more than double, I believe.

  3. feh by moniker127 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    flat income tax. only way to go. anyone have a clue about how much freaking money is wasted on calculating this crap? its in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

    1. Re:feh by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It will never happen. What it comes down to is a choice:

      1) Use a passive system that does not have to rely on the gathering and verification of data from individual citizens. No paperwork. No money spent on preparing taxes.

      2) Use an active system that allows control over information, excuses to invade privacy, reasons to seize property and bank accounts.

      Which one do you think the US government prefers? Which one favors their "war on Terrah"? Taxes are just as much about how to control people and information as they are about collecting income for the state.

    2. Re:feh by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I know those people cheat already, but why make it legal.

      So, you're advocating continuing to screw the general public on taxes because you like having a legal basis to punish the wealthy for being wealthy?

    3. Re:feh by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where does the Constitution of any State guarantee the RIGHT to low cost public transportation, health care or schools?

      The US constitution doesn't guarantee any of these things. It does, however, create a legislature empowered to raise funds and spend them for the general welfare. And as we live in a democracy, and the vast majority of us support the programs you mention, you're going to just have to suck it up. Or convince us to change our minds: good luck with that.

    4. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's wrong with you? You're not part of the trust fund crowd. Why are you continuing to argue against your own interests?

      That's the same line of bullshit that was used to sell us the income tax in the first place. The American people were promised that the federal income tax would only affect the top 1% of earners. Didn't work out that way, did it?

      Every "soak the rich" scheme turns into a "soak everybody" scheme in a few years, because of the effects of the even more insidious mode of taxation, which is inflating the currency.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And as we live in a democracy,

      First of all, this isn't supposed to be a democracy, it's supposed to be a republic, and secondly, if you imagine that our government obeys the will of the people, you are sadly deluded.

      the vast majority of us support the programs you mention

      You're funny.

      There was this little incident last year, in which our bought-and-paid-for legislators decided to hand some seven hundred billion dollars over to a bunch of incompetent speculators. This was done despite overwhelming disapproval by the public. In fact, that bitch who purports to represent me in the senate admitted that she had gotten a total of 91,000 calls on the matter, of which 85,000 were against, and she gave a snotty little lecture on the senate floor where she lied through her teeth and claimed that we didn't understand what they were doing.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      flat income tax. only way to go.

      Limit the activities of the federal government to its constitutional powers, and there would be no need for an income tax at all.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:feh by Wildclaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is only one "fair" flat tax and that is a flat wealth tax. Of course, you will never hear that coming out of the mouth of any of the flat taxers who only are interested in a tax system that benefits the upper and upper middle class.

      Rich people are already benefitting from the current "so called progressive" tax system as evidenced by the growing gap between rich and poor. And everyone with a tiny bit of economic understanding knows why. The current tax system is highly in favor of those who own capital.

    8. Re:feh by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Government uses taxes for behavior modification as much as for revenue.

      That's what makes it so insidious. We are not property for the government to command.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    9. Re:feh by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is she elected? If she is and is reelected in the next election, then the voters really don't know what they are doing ;).

      --
    10. Re:feh by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who is running against her? Does her opponent agree with her? If not, is he worse than her in other important ways? It's quite possible that the voters do know what they are doing; they just don't have anyone better to vote for.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    11. Re:feh by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do know that every member of the "trust fund" crowd I have ever heard speak on the subject has been in favor of increasing the tax rate on the highest income bracket. Do you know why that is? People who are members of the "trust fund" crowd don't have any "income": none of their money is taxed under income tax.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:feh by harl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a republic of representative democracies. Which is functionally different than either a direct democracy or a representative democracy. Each state is fairly autonomous. Things that are legal in one state are illegal in another. The other states and the fed can't stop each other from doing this.

      Also it used to be one of the core differences in the major political parties. Dems want to take away state right and Rep want to strengthen state rights. Well it used to be that way. Now the only difference is the color of their tie and whether or not they hate people who are a different color or religion than them.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
  4. Always looking for a pocket to pick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If they want to tax real money gained for selling virtual items/services, that's fine. Technically it's already taxed under the 'Other Income' category.

    On the other hand, if they want to take my Everquest Gold, or my World Of Warcraft Epic Mount, they can byte my virtual posterior. It doesn't exist, it can't be taxed.

    Even if you took the route of "if you sold it for real money..." you still can't tax it. If you did, then you could be taxed for your car (you could sell it), your blood (you can sell it several times a month), your grandmothers old knicknacks (you might inherit them, then sell them), etc. All in all, a stupid idea.

  5. I can't wait for taxation by the_raptor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Taxation of virtual worlds will mean players will have ownership over their accounts (currently trying to monetize your WoW assets is a bannable offence), and fraud and theft in virtual worlds will fall under standard criminal statutes.

    Trying to enforce that mess will drain resources from trying to create copyright cops or other nonsense.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  6. If this happens ... by Aiml · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can I write my WoW characters off as dependencies?

  7. Taxing Monopoly money next? by laron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gaming companies by and large insist that they own everything within the game. Basically a player "owns" stuff the same way a monopoly player "owns" his cards, houses and money, i. e. only in the context of the game. If there is a transition to real world money (gold on ebay), that is already taxable.

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
  8. (Virtual) reality check by itsdapead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody would argue that income suddenly became immune from income tax simply because it was earned using a computer and the internet. OK, which have convoluted rules about cross-border transactions, but not income tax. I think you'll also find that the taxmen also have existing arrangements (took 30 seconds on Google to find that) to deal with any attempt to use alternative currencies or barter exchanges as an end-run around tax.

    The only difference between income from selling software or art on your dollar-priced internet shop and income from running a virtual hat shop in Second Life is a sprinkling of fairy dust. If second-lifers try too hard to make it sound like something new, different and scary, the danger is that the tax authorities will be only too keen to invent new, different and scary rules...

    What I find depressing is that these "virtual worlds" are all taking the form of capitalist economies. Communism/Socialism may or may not work in the real world, but if I'm going to move to a virtual world which is supposedly limited only by the imagination of its inhabitants, I'm holding out for a post-scarcity utopia like The Culture or even the freakin' United Federation of Planets! If you don't have property then its much harder to have tax...

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  9. Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, you can deduct business expenses.

    This is exactly the reason why taxation isn't anything to get hysterical about. If you make so much money from selling stuff that you actually have to pay taxes then you should be taxed -- just like all the other businesses selling stuff.

    Now if only peddlers of religion were held to the same standard.