4880169
story
Comments: 124 +- News: IRS Now Wants To Repeal Cell Phone Tax on Wednesday June 17 2009, @07:07AM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Wednesday June 17 2009, @07:07AM
from the talk-amongst-yourselves dept.
from the talk-amongst-yourselves dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiccellphone.gif); width:75px; height:74px;
cellphones
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicus.gif); width:80px; height:61px;
usa
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnews.gif); width:60px; height:66px;
news
narramissic writes "Last week the IRS caused an uproar when it requested public comments on ways to clarify a decades-old law, seldom enforced, that would tax personal usage of business cell phones. But IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said that the request for comments did not mean that the largely ignored rule would now be enforced. 'Some have incorrectly implied that the IRS is "cracking down" on employee use of employer-provided cell phones,' Shulman wrote. 'To the contrary, the IRS is attempting to simplify the rules and eliminate uncertainty for businesses and individuals.' And in fact, the IRS is now recommending that the law be repealed, saying that 'the passage of time, advances in technology, and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete.'"
Related Stories
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
ISPs as internet cops (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
*shakes Magic 8-Ball* "Don't Count On It."
Hmmm, this thing is pretty accurate. I wonder if it can help me with my office's email software problems?
*shaks again* "Outlook Not No Good."
Wow, this thing DOES know a few things about computers!
Something doesn't smell right... (Score:4, Insightful)
The IRS wants to get RID of a tax?
Why am I deeply suspicious of this?
What's really going on here? What am I quietly going to get nailed on instead?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The IRS wants to get RID of a tax?
Why am I deeply suspicious of this?
What's really going on here? What am I quietly going to get nailed on instead?
I read another article by Reuters [reuters.com] about this that is entitled:
Obama backs repeal of tax on personal cellphones
Very little mention of the IRS in that article. They make it sound like Treasury Secretary (Timothy) Geithner got together with Douglas Shulman, the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner, and convinced him to ask Congress to repeal this. Together.
You know, I don't know where the initiative came from, it doesn't really matter. But I found it amusing that a lot of news outlets probably thought "IRS to Repeal Tax"? That cannot sell and soun
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Easy (Score:2)
see that Blackberry the Prez carries... found out he was calling the wife.
well, one thing led to another and...
Most likely, the IRS seriously fumbled the handling of the issue and instead of getting ahead of it they got caught with their pants down. Since about everyone likes to hate to the IRS and it makes great talk radio ratings they really didn't have much of a choice. Best of all its not a loss either, they were not collecting it so they can't lose money they didn't collect. Everyone wins, the pund
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They (apparently) want to get rid of this tax.
So far, so good, but what if "simplifying" the tax regime means "Oh, but we'd like a flat tax on all cell sales / contracts / minutes / SMSs, since that's simpler than trying to identify and tax personal use of business phones."
Re: (Score:2)
This is a truly strange day.
The IRS wants to simplify a code? The Obama administration is looking at reducing taxation?
Re: (Score:2)
This tax is probably getting evaded constantly (intentionally or not), and brings in comparatively little revenue... It probably costs more to police it than it actually brings in.
Re:Something doesn't smell right... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many situations where a request for comments is mandatory.
Your right winger knee jerk reaction is utterly without a basis in the facts of this particular situation.
The irs actually does a pretty fair job of making some sort of sense - twisted though it occasionally may be - out of the spaghetti legislation handed to it by congress.
It's hardly surprising that they would ask congress to ditch a law with which maybe a half dozen people on the planet comply.
The cost of maintaining the documentation, training it's agents, publishing forms no one uses - what's the point?
It's typical that even when an agency steps up and says "um...we've looked at what we're doing and there are some practices that don't make sense, and don't serve anyone, and we'd like to change them - anyone else have any input first?" - some troll crawls out of Limbaugh's jock to piss and whine.
Get a life.
Parent
Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
The IRS wants to repeal a tax law?
Who are you people, and what have you done with our Internal Revenue Service?
Re: (Score:2)
We are your Imaginary Rescue Squad.
The "Internal Revenue Service" Is in the cinema. Watching Hanna Montana, the movie. We tried to send him to hell, but God told us we should not be that cruel on the devil. (Who already had installed his first break-in protection system, when he heard about it. He also was the one, who recommended the movie. It's nice to see Satan still being able to be that cruel, after all those years and the broken marriage with Saddam.
Sorry, What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sorry, What? (Score:4, Funny)
Not only that, kdawson posted a feel-good story instead of a world-is-coming-to-an-end story! Something is seriously wrong around here.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it outdated, just because it has never been enforced?
It makes sense that employee perks are taxed the same as income, otherwise incoming is just replaced with perks. How many really need a phone paid for by the company or are you just evading taxes? If you use it many for personal purposes I would count it tax-evasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
. . . it is sure to be replaced by a new tax which generates more revenue than the never-used cell phone tax. In fact, that's how they'll justify the new tax ("well, we did get rid of this obsolete tax no one ever paid, so this is more than fair"). At the current rate of spend of this administration, we'll soon be taxed by the breath.
It's time to be patriotic, after all.
Just earlier... (Score:2, Interesting)
Your move
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't happened yet.
It's still your move.
How about... (Score:3, Funny)
Uh huh, sure you are (Score:2, Insightful)
If that were the case, then the IRS would be lobbying Congress for a flat corporate tax, and either a flat income tax for individuals that applies to all income or replacing the income tax with excise taxes. The income tax is now useful to the feds mainly as a form of social control. If you become too much of a thorn in the President's side, he can just have the IRS audit you and those ass
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A 2.5% flat income tax? 2.5%?? My dear friend, I don't even need the back of an envelope to tell you that you'll never take in enough tax with that to cover even the most basic of public services. Making up the shortfall with a tax on luxury goods won't work because, well, they're luxury goods! Per definition people are willing to forgo their purchase. And, even if they weren't, I highly doubt the turnover on luxury goods is high enough that even a 100% tax would fill the Government's coffers much.
Further,
Less intrusive link (Score:2)
No taxation without telecommunication! (Score:2)
'nuff said
Yet another corporate tax break... (Score:2)
Gee, it sure is swell that we have found yet another way to reduce the amount taxes corporations have to pay (since they can claim all of this personal usage as a business expense), not to mention giving these individuals a tax break the rest of us are NOT entitled to. What a great country.
A little clarification is needed here (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't some "cell phone tax" that companies are charged for owning cell phones. When you buy any equipment to run a business, and that equipment is expected to last more than a year, you have to depreciate it. There's a particular part of the depreciation schedule that you have to fill in for various pieces of technology, like cell phones, where you have to provide a percentage of usage that is personal rather than business. And you're only able to depreciate business use of the phone over a 5 year period.
What the IRS is saying is that the effort to calculate this percentage with itemized statements, and identifying every person called, is usually greater than the extra few dollars of tax they may collect. Contrary to popular belief, the IRS doesn't want your money, Congress does. The IRS is just making sure you've paid the right amount. If you want to be upset at someone for taking your money, be upset at your representatives in the Capital.
Food for thought, if the phone is destroyed or trashed before 5 years are up, I've yet to find a place in the tax code where you can write off the remaining value, and you're no longer allowed to depreciate a destroyed item. Another thought, if you start a company that earns $500k in its first year, but requires $400k in equipment, if depreciation lets you write off $100k, you'll be taxed on $300k of income that first year, or about $100k, the entire amount of profit for that year. The depreciation portion of the tax code is pretty messed up. And what the IRS gives back in business write offs, local governments take away in business taxes based on how much equipment your business has. For everyone that's against business people and their write offs, try running a business yourself before knocking it next time.
Re: (Score:2)
"f you blow away the 16th Amendment [usconstitution.net], you can repeal the entire IRS, and the cell phone tax en piss-ant."
While taking a leak??? Really?
I'm pretty sure that you can't repeal constitutional amendments in the men's room.
What did you REALLY mean?
It's a pun, dude (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissant [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Usage: Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
due to it's lack of enforcement it wasn't near the same revenue generator as the land line tax that was repealed and refunded the other year..
Although if it was enforced it could easily replace that revenue stream - but again.. difficult to do.. and they can just drop it and everyone things they are getting a break (when nothing changes)
it's sad how easy this populous is manipulated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would much prefer a flat income tax, with deductions allowed only for charities, education, and creative sponsorships (i.e., patrons of the arts).
I also think that the tax rate should never exceed a fixed percentage of income, including any compulsive tariffs or fees (property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, driver's license fees, etc.).
Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Do these right wing nutties have any idea of the dangers of a cash economy? Today, in USA, 1$ in cash is worth 1$ in bank. But 1 million dollars in cash is worth lot less than 1 million dollars properly accounted for in the bank. Black money is worth lot less in USA than white money. That is not the case in Mexico, Phillipines, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power, then corruption sets in. We are paying pittance for our judges, police chiefs, auditors and law enforcers in general. Once cash economy takes root, corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them. The source of cash economy is tax evasion. Purely on that account, we should stop drinking the cool aid about consumption tax and such stupid ideas.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Force the states to tax farm all of the desired federal spending.
This would effect a badly needed negative feedback loop [wikipedia.org] to drive the system towards a gazinta==gazouta state.
Sure, you need exception handling for situations like a No Kidding Declaration of War [wikipedia.org], (which hasn't been seen since FDR), and times when states default on their "f
Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
But if you want social spending, and haven't told me how you're doing it without chronic deficit spending, you haven't told me much.
This part's actually not that hard, my country (Soviet Canuckistan) had been deficit-free for several successive governments now. We're probably going to have a deficit this year, thanks to your country's free-market true believers deregulating the hell out of your banks (and other causes) since Reagan, and finally taking down the world economy, but we're expecting the return to deficit spending to be temporary. There's a good chance that the current government will fall, because the deficit is going to be bigger than projected (the PM's a Conservative, incidentally). But not to worry, Canadians in all demographic groups will continue to receive their universal health care.
The trick seems to be 1) don't deregulate the financial system, because greedy bastards will rob you blind if given a free hand. 2) turf out politicians who take too much pork (a little pork fat does keep the wheels turning), because the greedy bastards will rob you blind if they can and 3) turf out politicians who threaten to take away your most cherished social programs, because the greedy bastards would rather spend the money on pork (see 2).
Of course I'm being too glib, but if your basic requirements are social spending and no deficit (I suspect you'd rather see no social spending, given some of your sources), then it's been done, and done consistently (if not always done well).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The US has close to 10 times the population of Canada. California alone has more people than Canada.
Nothing in my argument precludes a Canada-style system in any one of our 57 states. Citizens should have the right to vote as they see fit. Just ask Mitt Romney, and he'll tout his Massachusetts work.
The entire sub-prime crisis ought to have been precluded a priori by a simple reading of Amendment 10 [usconstitution.net]. You don't need chemotherapy to contain a c
Re: (Score:2)
Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power, then corruption sets in
Yeah, because there's no corruption in Obama's government now (cough Geithner [wikipedia.org]) (cough Daschle [wikipedia.org]) (cough brewing AmeriCorps scandal [wsj.com]). Thanks for figuring it all out for the rest of us dummies, liberal elite!
Re: (Score:2)
I am not arguing there is no corruption in Obama's administration or Bush's. But this pales in comparison to what happens in a cash economy. But go ahead drink your cool aid. The one positive thing about USA is that the demographic shift is taking power away from the people who feed cool aid to peo
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that cover most of Europe and Canada?
First of all, the collection and payment of sales tax is up to the landscaper or handyman, not the person paying them, at least in my state. Second, that tax goes to the state and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17% or 22% tax to distant Washington DC?
That's a feature, not a bug.
So you are advocating for an intentionally crippled system and would cheer on wide spread tax evasion. You are not fit to live in a Democracy. Do you know how Democracy will die? Not with bullets and guns. It will die because of people like you who keep granting themselves benefits of Democracy without the willingness to pay for them.
I am a rugged independent fella living out in Arizona and I want the federal government off my back. Just go build Hoover Dam and give me my electricity. Just regulate the ut
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in most states, is IS up to the person buying the goods or services to pay the taxes if the service provider or vendor doesn't collect and remit those taxes. It's usually called a "use" tax, etc. So, if you're in California for example, and have a product shipped to you from South Dakota... you're supposed to write a check to your state government in the amount that the sales tax would have be
Re:Hey, ya know: screw the dumb stuff (Score:5, Informative)
Cool down buddy. Consumption tax flat tax etc are all stupid ideas sold to people like you who are easily persuaded that the grass is greener on the other side. Have you lived in economies that tax goods and services at more than 10%? Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on, and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately? How many people you know who evade the simple 5% or 6% local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man? That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal. Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17% or 22% tax to distant Washington DC? Can you imagine the kind of intrusive systems needed to catch the scofflaws? If you think IRS is intrusive looking at your pay slip, wait till you get IRS demanding you show documentation for having paid tax on your wrist watch and shaving blades.
Do these right wing nutties have any idea of the dangers of a cash economy? Today, in USA, 1$ in cash is worth 1$ in bank. But 1 million dollars in cash is worth lot less than 1 million dollars properly accounted for in the bank. Black money is worth lot less in USA than white money. That is not the case in Mexico, Phillipines, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. Once unaccounted money gets decent buying power, then corruption sets in. We are paying pittance for our judges, police chiefs,
auditors and law enforcers in general. Once cash economy takes root, corrupt people will work their way into every crevice of power and it would exceedingly difficult to get rid of them.
The source of cash economy is tax evasion. Purely on that account, we should stop drinking the cool aid about consumption tax and such stupid ideas.
All of Europe lives with a VAT, which is a consumption tax. The rates are usually around 20%. Citizens aren't ever asked to show they paid tax - that's put on the businesses. I've seen more under the table money in the US than in Europe, perhaps because the VAT is so much simpler to enforce across the board. Prices in Europe always include tax - no one shakes their fists at the tax markup, and those who have a problem with it don't seem as upset as the typical American who is upset with the income tax.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a country with 18% VAT (which for consumers is pretty much equivalent to "sales tax").
There's not that much VAT tax evasion.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can you imagine the kind of tax evasion that goes on, and the parallel cash economy that springs up immediately?
Is this so much worse than the current situation, where many just charge and pay 15% or higher interest to those wonderful financial institutions responsible for our current economic crisis?
How many people you know who evade the simple 5% or 6% local sales tax on the services by the landscaper or the handy man? That is the tax that goes to pay for your own local neighbourhood schools and snow removal
Not in my state. School budgets, county and local services come out of property taxes. State Sales Tax and State Income Tax goes to big feeding troth in Trenton.
Now imagine how willing they will be to pay a 17% or 22% tax to distant Washington DC?
I already pay that amount. If it comes out as a sales tax then I'm better off because a) I don't have to deal with filing returns and the associated costs, an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just interpreted it to mean all extremists, since if you go far enough right, you wrap around to the left...
Okay, not really, but since both extremes should be shot, I just lump them all together anyway. So it kinda works out.