Oh sure. You can definitely hope to "get away with it". But one audit, one slip up, and you'll get hit with the taxes and penalties on the amount, with no limit.
You know it was not tax free, right? In-kind earnings or barter or other non-currency compensations/exchanges are 100% taxable events per the IRS. Go ahead - ask your local revenue officer about that, and you'll find yourself with a nice bill for the gains...
Not useful? Tell me how else you can send $10 million to China in 15 minutes for a $50 fee.
For $50? I can't do it... HSBC only charges me $15 to wire transfer an unlimited amount of funds from Hong Kong to any destination in the world - including China. I'd have to do at least 4 transactions to reach the $50 of Bitcoin.
Oh, and you can't do it either - Bitcoin is banned in China, so good luck sending it there. But USD, or HKD, or EUR, or GBP, or even RMB? Not a problem. But BC? Nope.
A credit account has no value; it is a bank willing to loan you the funds. You don't have them already. And that debit card? Probably held in the bank, and transferring $10K from the bank will trigger US Federal Government reports. A wallet? Well - that IS the value, just like a wad of cash, right? A debit card is NOT the value, it is simply one way (of multiple) to access the value. But a bitcoin wallet?
And with bitcoin (and other crypto currencies) they only have to trace it once - then they have EVERY transaction you have ever made, and the opportunity for multiple charges just multiplies. Isn't it great having a monetary system where each and every transaction you ever make is 100% traceable and 100% linked to you?
The IRS disagrees with you. If you realize a gain on bitcoin or use it for payment (or redemption) it must be reported like any other currency. Given the IRS ruling, in fact, traveling overseas with a BC wallet on your phone would mean you have to declare that as a monetary item above $10K, or face fines and jail time...
July 2017, Musk stated they would make 20K of the Model 3s in December. In October, he stated that they would hit 20K units per month by March 2018 at the earliest.
As far as technology, how about their "autopilot"? Not as functional as many other offerings on the market, and doesn't even see motorcycles, meaning its a hazard to fellow users of the road. Big tech fail there... And we won't even get into the doors of the Model X...
The issue is, Tesla does not make a profit. They are losing money by the hundreds of millions a month. They have enough cash to last until next summer - and that assumes they can deliver 100K of the model 3 cars by that time. Guess what - when you sell a product at a loss, you can usually sell them, and usually get a lot of attention. Of course, you also kind of kill your company without a lot more cash injection - like hyping something new and innovative without any substance behind it.
He has to do something to keep people investing in his company, and keep the stock price high. Looking at the fundamentals, it's a crazyy buy for the stock. Never turned a profit, losing billions per year, cash-on-hand to keep running until summer next year - and massive commitments for new products and deliveries they have to meet. Add in the track record of never coming close to those delivery numbers - and it's crazy anyone buys the stock. So Musk has to put on the PT Barnum act and drum up more support so they can turn to the last option they have to raise more capital - sell more stock.
Lois Lerner and the IRS apologized for targeting conservative teams. That is a plain and obvious admission of guilt. Where's your proof that the IRS did the same under President Bush?
And yet - he cannot do much of anything other than negotiate treaties, as head of State. Any treaty MUST be ratified by the Senate - the check on the President's power to unilaterally commit the US to any International agreement (witness the ease of pulling out of the Paris Accords). And theoretically, for any military action longer than 90 days, the President is supposed to get the consent of Congress as well. In reality (per the Constitution, at least) the President is a very weak executive, wielding less power than most Prime Ministers.
Good lord, are you being intentionally daft? Claimed by anyone who uses the IPCC models/papers as justification for anything! The models simply do not match observed reality - being 2 to 4 times TOO HIGH, over a short timeframe. Look at the data I've linked many times! You just do not want to admit that the models don't work. Let's make better ones, let's figure it out - but let's STOP trying to dictate policy on provably false models!
And yet - the models are wrong. Data was used to "fit" the models, but the models don't fit reality. They are incapable of accurately predicting future temperatures - as proven by the satellite record. So which do you believe - the model results or the empirical data? And falling back on the "wisdom of the masses" is not acceptable in science - theories need to be proven or at least confirmed, and if data doesn't support the theory, it's the theory that is tossed - not the data. Except apparently for climate "science"...
Apparently a lot less than is claimed, given the fact that the models assume much more warming that has actually happened. So when do we change the models? Why do we keep following models that are provably false?
Using the IRS to attack your political opponents is, in fact, an impeachable offense. Too bad Congress didn't have the balls to carry it through. That is the height of authoritarianism and a hallmark of a dictatorship.
It is legal for foreign nationals to buy political ads in the US. They cannot endorse a candidate or party, but can buy and show issue ads. Taking a position one way or another on an issue. That is 100% legal. Endorse a candidate or party. That is illegal.
What is illegal is taking funds from a foreign national, for use in your political campaign, something that Hillary is quite familiar with.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh sure. You can definitely hope to "get away with it". But one audit, one slip up, and you'll get hit with the taxes and penalties on the amount, with no limit.
Apple says you're wrong. Their Magic keyboard with numeric keypad has a return and enter key.
So... Windows' fault?
You know it was not tax free, right? In-kind earnings or barter or other non-currency compensations/exchanges are 100% taxable events per the IRS. Go ahead - ask your local revenue officer about that, and you'll find yourself with a nice bill for the gains...
Not useful? Tell me how else you can send $10 million to China in 15 minutes for a $50 fee.
For $50? I can't do it... HSBC only charges me $15 to wire transfer an unlimited amount of funds from Hong Kong to any destination in the world - including China. I'd have to do at least 4 transactions to reach the $50 of Bitcoin.
Oh, and you can't do it either - Bitcoin is banned in China, so good luck sending it there. But USD, or HKD, or EUR, or GBP, or even RMB? Not a problem. But BC? Nope.
It's because You lack Courage. If you had Courage you would Understand the capitalization Plan.
A credit account has no value; it is a bank willing to loan you the funds. You don't have them already. And that debit card? Probably held in the bank, and transferring $10K from the bank will trigger US Federal Government reports. A wallet? Well - that IS the value, just like a wad of cash, right? A debit card is NOT the value, it is simply one way (of multiple) to access the value. But a bitcoin wallet?
Toyota? The one that started the whole "green car" thing back in 2003 with the Prius?
And with bitcoin (and other crypto currencies) they only have to trace it once - then they have EVERY transaction you have ever made, and the opportunity for multiple charges just multiplies. Isn't it great having a monetary system where each and every transaction you ever make is 100% traceable and 100% linked to you?
The IRS disagrees with you. If you realize a gain on bitcoin or use it for payment (or redemption) it must be reported like any other currency. Given the IRS ruling, in fact, traveling overseas with a BC wallet on your phone would mean you have to declare that as a monetary item above $10K, or face fines and jail time...
July 2017, Musk stated they would make 20K of the Model 3s in December. In October, he stated that they would hit 20K units per month by March 2018 at the earliest.
As far as technology, how about their "autopilot"? Not as functional as many other offerings on the market, and doesn't even see motorcycles, meaning its a hazard to fellow users of the road. Big tech fail there... And we won't even get into the doors of the Model X...
The issue is, Tesla does not make a profit. They are losing money by the hundreds of millions a month. They have enough cash to last until next summer - and that assumes they can deliver 100K of the model 3 cars by that time. Guess what - when you sell a product at a loss, you can usually sell them, and usually get a lot of attention. Of course, you also kind of kill your company without a lot more cash injection - like hyping something new and innovative without any substance behind it.
Hmmm - so it will supply ~8 times the current?
Rossi? Andrea Rossi? Is that you?
Or in July stating they can do 20K in December, but then sliding the required rate to March 2018 at the earliest? Oh wait...
Hope you don't pull into a supercharger station just after a truck pulled in - and plugged in all the chargers...
He has to do something to keep people investing in his company, and keep the stock price high. Looking at the fundamentals, it's a crazyy buy for the stock. Never turned a profit, losing billions per year, cash-on-hand to keep running until summer next year - and massive commitments for new products and deliveries they have to meet. Add in the track record of never coming close to those delivery numbers - and it's crazy anyone buys the stock. So Musk has to put on the PT Barnum act and drum up more support so they can turn to the last option they have to raise more capital - sell more stock.
Lois Lerner and the IRS apologized for targeting conservative teams. That is a plain and obvious admission of guilt. Where's your proof that the IRS did the same under President Bush?
And yet - he cannot do much of anything other than negotiate treaties, as head of State. Any treaty MUST be ratified by the Senate - the check on the President's power to unilaterally commit the US to any International agreement (witness the ease of pulling out of the Paris Accords). And theoretically, for any military action longer than 90 days, the President is supposed to get the consent of Congress as well. In reality (per the Constitution, at least) the President is a very weak executive, wielding less power than most Prime Ministers.
Good lord, are you being intentionally daft? Claimed by anyone who uses the IPCC models/papers as justification for anything! The models simply do not match observed reality - being 2 to 4 times TOO HIGH, over a short timeframe. Look at the data I've linked many times! You just do not want to admit that the models don't work. Let's make better ones, let's figure it out - but let's STOP trying to dictate policy on provably false models!
They moved because they lacked courage...
And yet - the models are wrong. Data was used to "fit" the models, but the models don't fit reality. They are incapable of accurately predicting future temperatures - as proven by the satellite record. So which do you believe - the model results or the empirical data? And falling back on the "wisdom of the masses" is not acceptable in science - theories need to be proven or at least confirmed, and if data doesn't support the theory, it's the theory that is tossed - not the data. Except apparently for climate "science"...
Apparently a lot less than is claimed, given the fact that the models assume much more warming that has actually happened. So when do we change the models? Why do we keep following models that are provably false?
Using the IRS to attack your political opponents is, in fact, an impeachable offense. Too bad Congress didn't have the balls to carry it through. That is the height of authoritarianism and a hallmark of a dictatorship.
It is legal for foreign nationals to buy political ads in the US. They cannot endorse a candidate or party, but can buy and show issue ads. Taking a position one way or another on an issue. That is 100% legal. Endorse a candidate or party. That is illegal.
What is illegal is taking funds from a foreign national, for use in your political campaign, something that Hillary is quite familiar with.