Slashdot Mirror
IRS Wants a Cut of Sales On eBay and Craigslist
Ponca City, We love you writes "In 2009, $60 billion worth of items were sold on eBay, meaning 'extra' money for many sellers, whose activities may provide them with taxable income. Now the Washington Post reports that beginning next year, a new law will require 'the gross amount of payment card and third-party network transactions to be reported annually to participating merchants and the IRS.' Also, for 2011 tax returns, 'taxpayers who annually sell more than $20,000 worth of goods and have more than 200 electronic transactions' will receive a new IRS form, known as 1099-K, for reporting the proceeds. The new tax issues shouldn't be a concern for people who sell just a few small items online for less than they paid for them, because as the IRS points out, income from auctions that resemble a garage or yard sale 'generally' isn't required to be reported. But if an online garage sale turns into a business with recurring sales and purchases of items for resale, it may be considered an online auction business. 'Generally, transactions resulting in a gain are reportable, regardless of whether the taxpayer is conducting a business,' says Gil Charney, principal tax researcher at The Tax Institute at H&R Block. The real reason behind the law is simple: Research shows taxpayers do a much better job of reporting taxable income when they know the IRS is receiving information about their transactions."
starting in 2012, businesses (that includes me and many other people who do work on the side) need to file a 1099 if you pay more than $600 in goods or services from someone.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
You don't sell things on Craigslist; you simply find buyers, meet, and sell it on your front porch (or somewhere in public).
And if you actually read the details, you have to sell over $20,000 and have 200 transactions in order for it to be reported. This is not for people who sell their cell phone every 3 months.
$20K is nothing; I can sell my classic car in my garage and exceed that amount. And since the regulations are not yet written (1099K is still in draft), the "and 200 transactions" is still up in the air. Knowing the desire for tax revenues, my opinion is that it'll end up being $20,000 OR 200 transactions.
Additionally, if I sold my classic car for $25,000 (about what it's worth, and about about what I've put into it over the years), and had two garage sales where I sold a lot of my old clothes, computer parts, records, and trinkets (easily beyond 200 items), I could end up having to report. Having 50 transactions at a single garage sale is not that uncommon; having 4 garage sales a year (especially if someone is out of work and looking to raise money by selling assets) puts you into this new "you're a business even though you aren't" category.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I work with some of those tea baggers. Sometimes I can't believe the stupid shit they say & think
Never mind:
* The record national debt run up by Smirky & Snarly
* The national/global economic crash caused by 8 years of complete republican control
* 2 Unwinable wars in muslim nations for the benefit of the American multinational energy and military industrial complex corporations
disclaimer for the trolls: I hate all politicians and believe they all need to be dragged into the street and shot as traitors
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
IRS can't share the information with other agencies on its own, but other agencies can request the said information. You know, the FBI can subpena your tax return and IRS will have to give it to them. What IRS can't do, is take your tax return and share it with other agencies without such a subpena.
With the IRS, you are guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on you to show the IRS is in error, not the other way around.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No?
Commerce clause? Ex post facto laws? Most of the bill of rights thrown out the window? Unjust wars? Insane debt levels? Financial system based entirely on an illusion? Judges asserting section five powers that there are no mention of in article three? Intellectual property laws that do more to deter innovation than to encourage it? Educational system that result in large percentages of the population indulging in rampant superstition, and largely unable to read, write or think at a level I'd accept for secretarial work, never mind the tiny (and largely wrong) collection of "facts" they bring with them? Have you noticed that almost our entire manufacturing base is no longer present and accounted for? I could go on - for pages - but it's pretty depressing.
Wait -- I should have asked -- do you live in the USA? Because that's the government I was speaking of. If you live somewhere else, you might, I suppose, have a government that's just fine. I doubt it somehow, but I accept the idea in principle. The US government, however, is an utter clusterfuck. You'd have to be the most servile kind of blinders-wearing sycophant to think otherwise.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And I suppose you don't care that the Fair Tax is a ridiculously regressive tax? Because it taxes buying power, it disproportionately effects those who do not save or invest but, instead, live paycheck to paycheck. So, if you're poor and you have to spend all your income on rent and food, the fair tax hits you hardest. If you're rich, and you are able to invest half your income, and you spend the rest, you're only taxed on half your income. Thus, the rich pay a lower real tax rate than the poor. (Add to this the fact that the marginal value of $1 is far less to a rich person than to a poor person to begin with and the system starts to look downright dystopian.)
The obvious way to fix this that I've heard some propose, is to allow exemptions for the poor, etc. But now you're getting back where we are now, where individuals have to keep track of their finances and report to uncle sam for their rebates. Except now individuals have to keep track of every single purchase, rather than just their annual income from their employer.
And this gets at the broader point: taxation is a powerful and legitimate tool for achieving public policy goals. But if you use a national sales tax, you either are robbed of those tools for the sake of keeping taxation simple, or you and up with the worst of both worlds: a highly regressive taxation system that is still a nightmare to administer.
caritj.org
The Fair Tax bill is the most thoroughly researched piece of legislation in the history of the USA and such questions have been exhaustively answered.
I'm glad I put the milk down, or it would be going through my nose right now. What's the economic impact of setting the pay-back line at poverty (as done now) vs twice poverty (and, of course, having a higher tax level to compensate)? It's never been researched at all. Back when no one heard of Fair Tax, I thought it great, and I asked the question, "why exactly poverty level?" and the answer back was something to the effect of "Because that's the lowest we can get it and the point is to sneak in something as regressive as possible while claiming it to be progressive." It is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand without *any* research at all.
If you disagree, please point me to some research done about how it would affect the US economy if that level was set at half-poverty, poverty, and twice-poverty. Go ahead, I'll wait.
And you are more civil than most with your "It's perfect, don't question The Fair Tax" stance. But usually, when I ask questions, they are even more self-righteous than that.
But mention that spending is more volatile than, say, income for boom bust periods and asking about what will be done to improve the stability of income, and they'll look at you like they never took econ 101. And these are the people claiming "the most thoroughly researched piece of legislation in the history of the USA" and miss simple things like spending being more variable than income. Really? Or correct me, where's the actual study on the effect of spending levels in varying economic times. After all, this completely unresearched piece of crap was so researched, you'd be able to prove me wrong easily. Instead, it's a good idea that was perverted early on by conservative people with the specific goal of getting the top income level as small as possible and convincing everyone else it was "fair."
When they have to name something with adjectives, you are safe in assuming the opposite, until they prove otherwise, and they haven't.
If you don't believe me, look at the utter shit being presented about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FairTax_married.png Apparently, this "revenue neutral" legislation will reduce the taxes on everyone. Either someone's taxes have to go up, or it can't be revenue neutral. So the graph, done by "a Boston University study" (really some guy's thesis, and I've done one of those, I know what crap they can be) is presented like fact, and is demonstrably flawed. That's the level of research this gets. "It'll lower taxes for everyone, and is revenue general too" and no one notices those are contradictions... With research like that, who needs facts?
Learn to love Alaska