no, we're not. business expenses dont work like that for companies, and not on that large a scale. the rules fro business expenses are quite stringent and clear cut. if that sort of thing could qualify, all goods and services would be dramatically cheaper because EVERYTHING is a business expense, and they would be writing EVERYTHING off. doesnt work like that; free lunch is an expense, but not a deductible one.
"Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code is the deduction provision for business or trade expenses. In order to be a trade or business expense and qualify for a deduction, it must satisfy 5 elements in addition to qualifying as an expense. It must be (1) ordinary and (2) necessary (Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, defines this as necessary for the development of the business at least in that they were appropriate and helpful). Expenses paid to preserve one’s reputation do not appear to qualify (Welch v. Helvering). In addition, it must be (3) paid or incurred during the taxable year. (4) It must be paid in carrying on (meaning not prior to the start of a business or in creating it) (5) a trade or business activity. To qualify as a trade or business activity, it must be continuous and regular, and profit must be the primary motive"
So providing free lunch (or really most employee benefits) at work is disqualified from deductibility just by the first two: 1- lunch is ordinary, but providing free lunch to employees is not ordinary. they could just buy it themselves 2- not necessary. again, can buy it themselves. and while labor laws say you much provide a lunch break, it doesnt say you much provide the lunch
Essentiall the question is can the business function without it? If yes, its not deductible. If no, then it is. An independent truck driver who pays for his own gas (diesel): the diesel qualifies for deduction. The same truck driver who outfits his truck with an expanded cab with a mattress and wants to write off the installation: Most likely not (debateable; some agents I've talked to would let it go as it saves him money on long hauls, but most agree his business can function without it cause he can just sleep in a motel..which ironically would itself qualify for deduction).
Free lunch is a benefit to the employees that helps with morale and retention. But while it may be an expense to the company, it is not a deductible one.
no, we're not. business expenses dont work like that for companies, and not on that large a scale. the rules fro business expenses are quite stringent and clear cut. if that sort of thing could qualify, all goods and services would be dramatically cheaper because EVERYTHING is a business expense, and they would be writing EVERYTHING off. doesnt work like that.
His tax money isnt paying for the lunches; Google's customers are. How is this guy teaching tax law if he doesnt even understand basic taxes or business sense?
also: how nice of you to take the comment out of context. im pretty sure my one hand on the wheel other on the shifter (or on the window frame, or in your gf's lap) is more in control than someone at 10&2 with a phone between their thumbs. the point was about distraction.
spoken like someone whos never actually driven a car, or who does so afraid every moment of dying. look, if the car responds like you want it to, you're doing it right. end of story.
the accident report from the on scene officer (re: subject matter expert whose report goes to the court) is what matters. there is no case for the prosecutor to make. the report either says it or it doesnt. right now you're essentially trolling.
its pertty much not possible for the enemy unit to get that close without being detected. so before you even need to arm to CIWS so its ready to do its thing you've already got your counterattack launched.
the CIWS is not the first line of the defense, its the last. and even if they did surprise you, that 20 seconds is still enuogh to fire a retaliation salvo at the threat.
one handed or two handed, no real difference. distracted driving is distracted driving. some people are simply better at multitasking than others, but the law fails to take into account individual ability.
i say get rid of all these various laws and replace them with one simple one: do what you want behind the wheel, but if you get into an accident and negligence/distraction was a root cause go to jail, lose license, pay all costs.
other countries are far, far harsher on the at fault driver, and oddly enough they have far fewer problems with them.
thats just the thundercell itself, essentially the motor that drives the rest of the storm system. the rest of the storm system will still produce rain and lightning without rising higher. the thundercell is essentially a self-reinforcing vortex (though vortex isnt really the right word) that builds and builds on itself, and provides the energy to the rest of the storm.
theres a huge difference, both type and quantity, between the radiation a fligth crew is possibly exposed to and the radiation a nuclear plant worker is possibly exposed to.
a "campsite" with electricity has about as much to do with camping as the Big Bang Theory has to do with "nerd culture".
its rare for there to be someone within 10 miles of me.
there's a fellow, (www.bucktrack.com) who's done and journaled several thru hikes. see his loadout? now thats hiking/camping. I havent done more than a few days at a stretch yet myself, but reading his and other folks stories, ultralight long distance hiking is the way to go. being as he's a perfect example of the type stuff I like to do, i'm gonna link one of his pics. here's a perfect setup: a tarp shelter atop a random mountain in the rockies (during his continental divide trip): http://www.bucktrack.com/CDT/Continental_Divide_Trail/Stoney_Pass_Camp.jpg
the book will probably last the entire weeklong trip. the book wont run out of juice after a few hours and become deadweight. plus i dont read a whole lot on my trips anyway.
The food keeps you from dying, especially since in most parks hunting and fishing are either banned or heavily controlled. The sleeping bag keeps you frm dying (freezing). You take electric lights?
It has nothing to do with being amishy. My total gear load weighs only ~18 lbs, and that includes my clothes (and boots), food rations and water. And I do inlcude a lightweight collapsable fishing rod as it happens to stretch my food farther. that video game is gonna be dead weight after a mere few hours, with 5 or 6 days of hiking still ahead of me.
but its not because of some luddite view of tech. its about "how much does this weigh, and how much will it contribute the trip". ie is it absolutely needed. unless your going to an official campground and gonna stay in one spot all week, the lighter the load the better. that way i can go further, faster, and with more energy.
my high school, the local catholic one, lucky enough to get enough financial aid to go to it, 3 english/literature teachers. each had a phd in lit. they also brought that passion the led them to seek those phds with them to the school. it wasnt about the tenure track professorship (the head actually mocked people who want to get a phd and then go right to professoring, as if there is nothing otuside the walls of a university); it was the learning itself, the subject itself, something they brought with them and were able to share with young high school kids and show them everythng they had been "taught" about writing and reading up to then was wrong and simplistic.
the school shut down a few years ago. 2 of them went across town to one of the public high schools, the 3rd retired (after teaching in that school for 40+ years).
sometimes your assumptions, you approach, are just too simplistic. there is more opportunity than just the walls of a prestigious university. sure, everyone wants to be a John Keating, just like every artist wants to be a Picasso. but not everyone can be one. but there are hundreds and thousands of jobs for commercial/marketing art, and there are hundreds and thousands of education jobs in high schools or for tutoring or private schools. Teaching in college isnt the only choice, and probably shouldnt be the first choice either.
apparently you never actually read why he made that statement or held that opinion.
it wasnt about how entertaining something is. that's not what or how he defined "art".
if you actually listened to ebert he also considered very many books and movies to also "not be art". you must remember that he did view art in the old school way. people today think art is anything created. thus "entertainment" is a valid purpose for art. he didnt hold that view. he held a more traditional view that art should do more than just entertain because a monkey flinging poo can be entertaining, but it isnt art. he held the view that art should have some purpose, such as holding up a mirror to society, acknowledging things we'd rather not, or showing triumphs or defeats or other realities of the world, or simply to communicate an idea, a position.
he essentially lumped videogames into that same category (purpose entertainment, no more) because of hte fundamental nature of the medium. and by and large, most video games have no purpose beyond entertainment. they provide a cheap, entertaining thrill of mowing down nazis, conquering planets, saving planets, revenge, etc. Only a few have tried to aspire to be more than entertaining.
Truth. Also, a good, consistent reviewer makes a great weather vane, even when you disagree with em. Ebert was a truly talented writer who always gave more than enough information for you to get a sense of your own (future) opinion, even if it was a movie you were likely to disagree with him on.
Plus he had that most essential quality: he genuinely loved movies and simply wanted to share that and them with everyone. contrary to a lot of critics who simply want to flame everyone and everything, and dictate the opinion of the masses.
Slashdot Mirror
no, we're not. business expenses dont work like that for companies, and not on that large a scale.
the rules fro business expenses are quite stringent and clear cut. if that sort of thing could qualify, all goods and services would be dramatically cheaper because EVERYTHING is a business expense, and they would be writing EVERYTHING off.
doesnt work like that; free lunch is an expense, but not a deductible one.
"Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code is the deduction provision for business or trade expenses. In order to be a trade or business expense and qualify for a deduction, it must satisfy 5 elements in addition to qualifying as an expense. It must be
(1) ordinary and (2) necessary (Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, defines this as necessary for the development of the business at least in that they were appropriate and helpful). Expenses paid to preserve one’s reputation do not appear to qualify (Welch v. Helvering). In addition, it must be (3) paid or incurred during the taxable year. (4) It must be paid in carrying on (meaning not prior to the start of a business or in creating it) (5) a trade or business activity. To qualify as a trade or business activity, it must be continuous and regular, and profit must be the primary motive"
So providing free lunch (or really most employee benefits) at work is disqualified from deductibility just by the first two:
1- lunch is ordinary, but providing free lunch to employees is not ordinary. they could just buy it themselves
2- not necessary. again, can buy it themselves. and while labor laws say you much provide a lunch break, it doesnt say you much provide the lunch
Essentiall the question is can the business function without it? If yes, its not deductible. If no, then it is. An independent truck driver who pays for his own gas (diesel): the diesel qualifies for deduction. The same truck driver who outfits his truck with an expanded cab with a mattress and wants to write off the installation: Most likely not (debateable; some agents I've talked to would let it go as it saves him money on long hauls, but most agree his business can function without it cause he can just sleep in a motel..which ironically would itself qualify for deduction).
Free lunch is a benefit to the employees that helps with morale and retention.
But while it may be an expense to the company, it is not a deductible one.
no, we're not. business expenses dont work like that for companies, and not on that large a scale.
the rules fro business expenses are quite stringent and clear cut. if that sort of thing could qualify, all goods and services would be dramatically cheaper because EVERYTHING is a business expense, and they would be writing EVERYTHING off.
doesnt work like that.
he's teaching at UF. thus, hardly surprising.
His tax money isnt paying for the lunches; Google's customers are.
How is this guy teaching tax law if he doesnt even understand basic taxes or business sense?
also: how nice of you to take the comment out of context. im pretty sure my one hand on the wheel other on the shifter (or on the window frame, or in your gf's lap) is more in control than someone at 10&2 with a phone between their thumbs. the point was about distraction.
spoken like someone whos never actually driven a car, or who does so afraid every moment of dying. look, if the car responds like you want it to, you're doing it right. end of story.
the accident report from the on scene officer (re: subject matter expert whose report goes to the court) is what matters. there is no case for the prosecutor to make. the report either says it or it doesnt. right now you're essentially trolling.
spray of water? too much effort.
smoke. much more effective, easier to generate, longer lasting.
lasers will see the return of smoke screens.
its pertty much not possible for the enemy unit to get that close without being detected.
so before you even need to arm to CIWS so its ready to do its thing you've already got your counterattack launched.
the CIWS is not the first line of the defense, its the last. and even if they did surprise you, that 20 seconds is still enuogh to fire a retaliation salvo at the threat.
Lawn dart ive never heard applied to the B1.
I have however heard it applied to the F102, F104, F106, F16.
one handed or two handed, no real difference.
distracted driving is distracted driving.
some people are simply better at multitasking than others, but the law fails to take into account individual ability.
i say get rid of all these various laws and replace them with one simple one: do what you want behind the wheel, but if you get into an accident and negligence/distraction was a root cause go to jail, lose license, pay all costs.
other countries are far, far harsher on the at fault driver, and oddly enough they have far fewer problems with them.
thats just the thundercell itself, essentially the motor that drives the rest of the storm system. the rest of the storm system will still produce rain and lightning without rising higher. the thundercell is essentially a self-reinforcing vortex (though vortex isnt really the right word) that builds and builds on itself, and provides the energy to the rest of the storm.
theres a huge difference, both type and quantity, between the radiation a fligth crew is possibly exposed to and the radiation a nuclear plant worker is possibly exposed to.
Would make for an interesting restart of Deadliest Catch
http://www.niftyfiftyscifi.com/mysteryisl/crab3.jpg
http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/wp-content/uploads/Mysterious-Island_Crab.jpg
a "campsite" with electricity has about as much to do with camping as the Big Bang Theory has to do with "nerd culture".
its rare for there to be someone within 10 miles of me.
there's a fellow, (www.bucktrack.com) who's done and journaled several thru hikes. see his loadout? now thats hiking/camping. I havent done more than a few days at a stretch yet myself, but reading his and other folks stories, ultralight long distance hiking is the way to go. being as he's a perfect example of the type stuff I like to do, i'm gonna link one of his pics. here's a perfect setup: a tarp shelter atop a random mountain in the rockies (during his continental divide trip): http://www.bucktrack.com/CDT/Continental_Divide_Trail/Stoney_Pass_Camp.jpg
the book will probably last the entire weeklong trip.
the book wont run out of juice after a few hours and become deadweight.
plus i dont read a whole lot on my trips anyway.
The food keeps you from dying, especially since in most parks hunting and fishing are either banned or heavily controlled.
The sleeping bag keeps you frm dying (freezing).
You take electric lights?
It has nothing to do with being amishy. My total gear load weighs only ~18 lbs, and that includes my clothes (and boots), food rations and water. And I do inlcude a lightweight collapsable fishing rod as it happens to stretch my food farther. that video game is gonna be dead weight after a mere few hours, with 5 or 6 days of hiking still ahead of me.
but its not because of some luddite view of tech. its about "how much does this weigh, and how much will it contribute the trip". ie is it absolutely needed. unless your going to an official campground and gonna stay in one spot all week, the lighter the load the better. that way i can go further, faster, and with more energy.
its also whining.
my high school, the local catholic one, lucky enough to get enough financial aid to go to it, 3 english/literature teachers. each had a phd in lit. they also brought that passion the led them to seek those phds with them to the school. it wasnt about the tenure track professorship (the head actually mocked people who want to get a phd and then go right to professoring, as if there is nothing otuside the walls of a university); it was the learning itself, the subject itself, something they brought with them and were able to share with young high school kids and show them everythng they had been "taught" about writing and reading up to then was wrong and simplistic.
the school shut down a few years ago. 2 of them went across town to one of the public high schools, the 3rd retired (after teaching in that school for 40+ years).
sometimes your assumptions, you approach, are just too simplistic. there is more opportunity than just the walls of a prestigious university.
sure, everyone wants to be a John Keating, just like every artist wants to be a Picasso. but not everyone can be one. but there are hundreds and thousands of jobs for commercial/marketing art, and there are hundreds and thousands of education jobs in high schools or for tutoring or private schools. Teaching in college isnt the only choice, and probably shouldnt be the first choice either.
National Security Letters would like have a word with you about your assertion about a right to publish.
video games on a camping trip?
that just seems so...unnecessary. so wrong.
i get goose bumps every time i see the the first few minutes of the right stuff.
Ive seen it probably 50 times.
still get them.
favorite. movie. ever.
apparently you never actually read why he made that statement or held that opinion.
it wasnt about how entertaining something is. that's not what or how he defined "art".
if you actually listened to ebert he also considered very many books and movies to also "not be art". you must remember that he did view art in the old school way. people today think art is anything created. thus "entertainment" is a valid purpose for art. he didnt hold that view. he held a more traditional view that art should do more than just entertain because a monkey flinging poo can be entertaining, but it isnt art. he held the view that art should have some purpose, such as holding up a mirror to society, acknowledging things we'd rather not, or showing triumphs or defeats or other realities of the world, or simply to communicate an idea, a position.
he essentially lumped videogames into that same category (purpose entertainment, no more) because of hte fundamental nature of the medium. and by and large, most video games have no purpose beyond entertainment. they provide a cheap, entertaining thrill of mowing down nazis, conquering planets, saving planets, revenge, etc. Only a few have tried to aspire to be more than entertaining.
intending to offend isnt a message. its just a middle finger. no more, no less.
work filters dude.
work filters.
Truth. Also, a good, consistent reviewer makes a great weather vane, even when you disagree with em. Ebert was a truly talented writer who always gave more than enough information for you to get a sense of your own (future) opinion, even if it was a movie you were likely to disagree with him on.
Plus he had that most essential quality: he genuinely loved movies and simply wanted to share that and them with everyone.
contrary to a lot of critics who simply want to flame everyone and everything, and dictate the opinion of the masses.