Venmo, PayPal and Cash App To Report Payments of $600 or More To IRS This Year (foxbusiness.com) 264
schwit1 writes: Millions of small business owners who rely on payment apps like Venmo, PayPal and Cash App could be subject to a new tax law that just took effect in January. Beginning this year, third-party payment processors will be required to report a user's business transactions to the IRS if they exceed $600 for the year. The payment apps were previously required to send users Form 1099-K if their gross income exceeded $20,000 or they had 200 separate transactions within a calendar year. Democrats made the change in March 2021, when they passed the American Rescue Plan without any Republican votes. The new rule only applies to payments received for goods and services transactions, meaning that using Venmo or PayPal to send a loved one a gift, pay your roommate rent, or reimburse a friend for dinner will be excluded. Also excluded is anyone who receives money from selling a personal item at a loss; for example, if you purchased a couch for $300 and sold it for $250, the amount is not taxable.
Big Paperwork is behind this one (Score:4, Interesting)
Democrats made the change in March 2021, when they passed the American Rescue Plan without any Republican votes...
After plebeians have filed their taxes this year and had to undergo explaining every set of rent payments made through a cash app, we're going to enjoy a midterm election without any Democrat votes.
Re:Big Paperwork is behind this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats made the change in March 2021, when they passed the American Rescue Plan without any Republican votes...
After plebeians have filed their taxes this year and had to undergo explaining every set of rent payments made through a cash app, we're going to enjoy a midterm election without any Democrat votes.
Huh? Why would the renter have to explain anything? It's quite obvious this is a recurring monthly payment to a business. It's the business who has to report the income from these payments.
You don't think people have to explain getting two large deposits into their back accounts every month from their employer, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
3 roommates share the cost of rent, but landlord only wants 1 check. So one person writes the check and the other two Venmo the payer. Now at the end of the year, the person writing checks to the landlord has to claim all of the reimbursements as "income" and then deduct the cost of rent as a "business expense."
It's going to be utterly ridiculous.
No. That is not the case. (Score:5, Informative)
From: Technical Explanation of Section 9674 of H.R. 1319, the âoeAmerican Rescue Plan Act of 2021.â (March 01, 2021).
https://www.jct.gov/publicatio... [jct.gov]
Explanation of Provision This provision lowers and modifies the threshold below which a third party settlement organization is not required to report payments to participants in its network. Under the provision, for any calendar year, a third party settlement organization is required to report third party network transactions with any participating payee that exceed a minimum threshold of $600 in aggregate payments, regardless of the aggregate number of such transactions.
Third party network transactions include any commercial transactions settled through a third party payment network. The provision also clarifies that third party network transactions only include transactions for the provision of goods or services (e.g., personal gifts, charitable contributions, and reimbursements are not included).
For example, an individual who has registered for a mobile payment service and uses such a service to reimburse friends or relatives for expenses, or on occasion sells a used item to another person, would not be engaging in transactions that are subject to reporting requirements.13 However, if that individual were to register with such mobile payment service for the purposes of engaging in commercial transactions, such as regularly carrying on a trade or business through use of that service, the mobile payment service would be required to report under the provision.
This only affects businesses, not people paying rents. You have to be registered as a business for it to affect you in any way.
Hell, even Fox News can't but explain that it doesn't affect individuals and that it only makes Venmo and PayPal report something that businesses should already be reporting.
The new rule only applies to payments received for goods and services transactions, meaning that using Venmo or PayPal to send a loved one a gift, pay your roommate rent, or reimburse a friend for dinner will be excluded.
Also excluded is anyone who receives money from selling a personal item at a loss; for example, if you purchased a couch for $300 and sold it for $250, the amount is not taxable.
To be clear, business owners are already required to report these incomes to the IRS.
The new rule simply means that the IRS will figure out what business owners earned on the cash apps regardless of what that individual actually reports on their 1099-K because it broadens the scope of the threshold.
(This rule is separate from another Democratic proposal that would require banks and other financial institutions to disclose accounts with $10,000 of annual deposits or outflows to the IRS).
No, being stupid is YOUR raison d'etre. (Score:2)
you cannot be this stupid..
Keep up the good work. Wanna buy some NFTs?
Furthermore most of us upgraded our Paypal account over a decade ago in order to avoid all the limits they tied to their personal accounts. We wanted immediate access to our cash with the debit card and did not want to deal with the e-check method of payment. So our accounts were already flagged for the $20k/200 transaction trigger. Thats simply going to get downgraded to $600.
So... Most of "you" upgraded to a business account and now complain for being treated like a business that should be reporting its income?
Seriously... Wanna buy some NFTs? I need to go to bathroom anyway...
Once you have $600 in total transactions for a year, you WILL receive a 1099-K form. Its just going to be a lot easier for them this way. Let you have to settle it out. They are not going to take the chance someone uses a personal account to collect weed payments.
So? You're supposed to be reporting it anyway. This way you'll have your paperwork done in advance.
Unless you're complaining on not being able to collect them weed payments, through a payment service you already know reports all your transactions to the IRS...
Any
Re:No, being stupid is YOUR raison d'etre. (Score:4, Informative)
It wasnt a fucking BUSINESS account back then you fucking retard. It was called Premium. In fact even NOW its not a BUSINESS account, as I am constantly solicited to 'upgrade to business'. But These accounts WILL trigger a 1099.
You can call Paypal customer service and downgrade to a personal account, assuming you're not actually using it to do business (e.g. selling on eBay).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And exactly how will the company or IRS know what payments are for what?
I dunno about Venmo, but I've never seen on PayPal where you check a box saying what type money transaction is happening.
Unless there's something that happened in past couple days, I've never seen a check box for "rent" before.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have to know what the payments are for, they just have to know who is being paid. If it is a business being paid, they report it. If it is a person being paid, they don't. The 'rent' thing was an example. If Jim and Joe are roommates and Joe pays Jim $750 for the rent, it doesn't get reported (Jim is not a business). When Jim pays the landlord $1500, it is reported (the landlord is a business).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've never seen a check box for "rent" before.
It's not gonna be a box but a form. [theguardian.com]
This means that whether you're selling products or services on Amazon, Etsy, eBay or at craft shows or just face-to-face, you can now expect to receive a 1099-K form - after 31 January 2023 - from the payment services that you're using of the revenue they reported on your behalf to the IRS for the purchases of goods and services made in 2022.
How do these services know that the purchases were made for goods and services and not just a payment from a friend or family member? Most of them are adding an extra form during the payment process for the payer to identify the nature of the payment.
You can also expect more questions this year from your payment service provider.
"You may notice that in the coming months we will ask you for your tax information, like a social security number or tax ID, if you haven't provided it to us already, in order to continue using your account to accept payments for the sale of goods and services transactions and to ensure there aren't any issues when these changes take effect in 2022," PayPal warns in a blogpost.
Re:Big Paperwork is behind this one (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that this doesn't actually change anything about their tax liability, don't you?
If they're running a business, they have the same obligations now that they did before. If they were liars and tax cheats, I'm not going to feel bad for them. Honest people were already properly reporting their income.
Re: (Score:2)
This was the brilliant plan to make everything they were putting in (a whole lot of nothing that somehow cost trillions) free by increasing tax collections. They told you they were going after billionaires to pay their share but what they really meant is they are going after everyone to make sure every single penny of day-to-day transact
Re: Big Paperwork is behind this one (Score:2)
They told you they were going after billionaires to pay their share but what they really meant is they are going after landlords too
I have so much outrage for these, in my American home on my Apple electronic devices, I can contain it. I will go to next MAGA really! And change my vote to the Republican! Lock her up lock her up, da!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
clearly states that rent payments would not be included.
What it clearly states is that it would not be taxable. That's not the same as not being included on the 1099-K. It's up to you when filing to declare which things are taxable and if there's a big disparity you'll be more likely to get flagged for an audit.
Re: Big Paperwork is behind this one (Score:2)
After plebeians have filed their taxes this year and had to undergo explaining every set of rent payments made through a cash app, we're going to enjoy a midterm election without any Democrat votes.
This affects the receiving end. So the plebs according to you think it's a great idea to let rent seekers hide income, REALLY?
Oh, oh, I get it, hey I'm a pleb too, friend!!
Let's uh, rally around getting 1099-B cancelled too, because uh.. that totally hurts the poors, I mean plebs, so they should hate it that I, I mean we, poors.. plebs! have to report stock trades, let the stock trickle down I always say, I make more money on the stock market, and then, well you, poors, I mean us, we can, you know, make m
This is why ... (Score:2, Informative)
I've never used those apps. Want to split a bill? I'm giving you cash. Don't accept cash? Consider yourself stiffed. I'm "that guy" who goes to the ATM twice a week and takes out $500, keeps it it at home, and tops up the wallet to $100 or $200 when it runs low.
Credit card points? What are those? Don't care - won't use a card unless it's for online purchases.
Re: This is why ... (Score:2)
All payment processors will have to play along. That means BTC exchanges (for government issued currency) as well...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Countries like the Netherlands are trying their hardest to make cash impossible to use.
Understand that cash is a government's nightmare, and electronic, perfectly traceable payments are a government's wet dream.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is why ... (Score:4, Interesting)
So you're a Luddite. Nobody cares man.
Press on.
In the meantime, I will enjoy the $1500 cash back I got for 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not new? (Score:5, Informative)
Good - bog them down (Score:3)
IRS can barely process the amount of information they currently have.
Personal anecdote:
I submitted a tax return earlier in the year with a lower refund (applied to the next year return). Then recalculated and submitted an amended return with a higher refund (still applied to the next year return) - this was in April.
In August, IRS finally processed the first return and "proactively" figured I overpaid and sent me a check for the difference (which matched the increase in the refund I asked for in the amended return).
I immediately returned the check and requested that it still be applied to the next year refund (because eventually they will get to my amended return, and then they will say I am asking for too much as they already sent the check to me :) ). They received the check and notified me that they began processing this request in August.
Then in December sent me a letter saying they are still "working on it" and it will take 6 more weeks. Not holding my breath (but I did my part).
Given the state of IRS systems and information processing, swamping them with millions more of transaction reports is as likely to overload their capabilities even more. May be that will help real tax evaders "fly under the radar".
There I said it (Score:4, Insightful)
They are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Now it is onto garage sales, one off jobs, and unreported tips. Okay, unreported tips need to be reported, but the paperwork overhead will be enormous burden for the little guy.
So, you helped fix the neighbor's fence, and they paid back the Home Depot cost, plus a bit extra. It was not work "per se" before, now you need to go though receipts, calculate gas mileage, and add deprecation for your portable saw, like a small business would.
When I heard "87,000 new IRS agents", I was pretty sure it was not for the rich. (hint: the rich is already audited, some are assigned full time IRS agents).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of things not covered (Score:2)
But how are the payment services going to know that the $650 that was transferred was for selling something at a loss, vs. a profit? They don't, so they must report it, and then both parties to the transaction get to prove it wasn't taxable.
But these rules have been in effect for years. The government is just changing thresholds and expanding who has to report.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck these assholes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading again. Unless you're receiving credit card payments in excess of $600 this does not affect you. As in - people are paying you using their own credit card.
Re:As per democrats' request (Score:5, Interesting)
It's cumulative. So you can only receive one payment for $500 per year. The next hundred is going to get you reported.
I'm curious how each company is going to determine what is "repayment from a friend" and what is "business income." Or most likely >600 you get reported anyway and they let you sort it out with the IRS later.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. It's all reportable. Sold your car for $1,000 and used Venmo? You have to find your original purchase receipt for the car to submit as a "business expense" against your "profit."
Re: (Score:3)
They don't. It's all reportable. Sold your car for $1,000 and used Venmo? You have to find your original purchase receipt for the car to submit as a "business expense" against your "profit."
If it was actually a business vehicle, you'd already have the receipt and/or proof in previous business tax returns.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is...it's not. It's a personal sale being treated as a business one just so they can be sure they don't miss any taxable income. It's up to you to prove you don't have any actual income.
Re: (Score:2)
The reporting requirements are for COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS. You selling a car is not a commercial transaction (unless that is your business).
Re: (Score:2)
The companies have to file a 1099-K regardless and they're not asking you which transactions are commercial or personal - or if they do, it doesn't change the reporting requirements. You do not have to report all of it as income on your tax return. But in the event of an audit (which is probably more likely if you have a 1099-K that isn't all reflected as income), you do have to have documentation on why the personal transactions are not taxable income.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As per democrats' request (Score:4, Informative)
No one seems to READ details..
Yeah, the world really is going to hell in a hand-basket... since they fall on the floor, foaming at the mouth on a small change (and make no mistake, its a small change) that will impact maybe 5% of people (the ones that are scamming for evasion/laundering purposes
file:///C:/Users/docm/AppData/Local/Temp/Technical-Explanation-of-Section-9674-of-HR-1319.pdf
Clearly states:
"This provision lowers and modifies the threshold below which a third party settlement
organization is not required to report payments to participants in its network. Under the
provision, for any calendar year, a third party settlement organization is required to report third
party network transactions with any participating payee that exceed a minimum threshold of
$600 in aggregate payments, regardless of the aggregate number of such transactions.
Third party network transactions include any commercial transactions settled through a
third party payment network. The provision also clarifies that third party network transactions
only include transactions for the provision of goods or services (e.g., personal gifts, charitable
contributions, and reimbursements are not included).
For example, an individual who has registered for a mobile payment service and uses
such a service to reimburse friends or relatives for expenses, or on occasion sells a used item to
another person, would not be engaging in transactions that are subject to reporting
requirements.13 However, if that individual were to register with such mobile payment service
for the purposes of engaging in commercial transactions, such as regularly carrying on a trade or
business through use of that service, the mobile payment service would be required to report
under the provision."
What this means is, if you have a personal account and are using the appropriate flags (its a check box on what the transaction is for), there is nothing that's going to force paypal to report the details to the IRS.
Little known fact, it COSTS paypal (and other companies) money to report to the IRS this information, it COSTS them money and time to process it, and it COSTS them legal risk to do it correctly (incorrectly done invites a lawsuit and make no mistake, it just takes one person with a lawyer on speed dial and we all know that person that does to turn this into a class action lawsuit)..
So just think about this logically.. To avoid those costs and risks, they are going to do this on accounts flagged as business (by when you signed up for the account you said, I want a personal account or business account).. and for other accounts, they will put simple routing rules (transactions that are self-reported as "goods and services" over a certain number/amount will be flagged..).
Re:As per democrats' request (Score:4, Insightful)
It's cumulative. So you can only receive one payment for $500 per year. The next hundred is going to get you reported.
I'm curious how each company is going to determine what is "repayment from a friend" and what is "business income." Or most likely >600 you get reported anyway and they let you sort it out with the IRS later.
It's pretty simple, PayPal keeps records, and you can print them out and keep them on file with your business and personal records. Pretty easy to label each one as income or repayment of a loan. Although I don't think it's a good idea to mix your personal and business PayPal accounts like that. Loaning a friend money from your business is not that good of an idea either, IMHO, but if you did, you should have it listed as an interest free loan somewhere in your business records. You are keeping proper business records, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't affect anyone who was already honestly reporting their income.
Oh, no! They're going to catch liars and tax cheats! The horror!
So you can only receive one payment for $500 per year. The next hundred is going to get you reported.
An accountant friend of mine always tells clients that they should be happy that they're paying more in taxes as it means that their income has gone up. Would you rather have the lower tax bill and NOT the thousands of dollars extra or pay a few bucks more and have the additional income?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're going for the big laughs here, but this is much more serious than you think or say. They are not just "catching tax cheats and liars", they are making a BUSINESS out of everyone who sells more than $600 or 20 items a year as a hobby or to earn a little extra cash in their spare time.
They have effectively killed off the casual hobby seller on eBay, etc. Now, everyone who sells a few items like old radios, mechanical or electrical parts, board games, plastic models, candles, etc. are going to
Re:As per democrats' request (Score:5, Informative)
they are making a BUSINESS out of everyone who sells more than $600 or 20 items a year as a hobby or to earn a little extra cash in their spare time.
You do know that you've always been required to report that as income, right? This is not something new.
There is literally no change here for anyone who was honest.
The only people complaining here are tax cheats and people who don't know any better. Which one are you? Let's find out:
I used to buy things at flea markets and resell them on eBay for many, many years. They have killed my hobby income now almost completely, Since I have no receipts for things bought at flea markets over the years, or any way to prove the cost of goods so if I were ever audited, I'd be fucked.
Ah, you're a tax cheat!
This has in no way "killed" your hobby. If you have records, that's going to be good enough for an audit as receipts aren't exactly common at flea markets. If you're really worried, just count the entire sale as profit. The difference in your income probably won't be significant anyway if this truly is "just a hobby" and not a business in disguise.
A friend of mine has a very large retro computer collection. He very often buys and sells as a way to keep his investment in his personal collection as low as possible. He's kept proper records since he picked up his first TI99/4A. More akin to a business, he also sells electronics kits on eBay. He has separate records for that enterprise as well and properly reports the small amount he profits to the IRS every year.
I did the same when my wife sold handmade jewelry, though she never managed to turn a profit. It was just a fun hobby for her; she just enjoyed going to events and showing-off her work. Still, it takes almost no effort to keep proper records so there is absolutely no reason not to do so. It's what honest people do, after all.
Re:As per democrats' request (Score:4, Interesting)
I made no profit. I only hoped to recoup a tiny fraction of what I spent over the years.
You'll be happy to know that if you're taking a loss you're under no obligation to report that as income. This is no different than if you sold your car or held a garage sale.
I kept records on the few items I could obtain receipts for,
This doesn't make any sense. You can still record what you spent and what you bought. You don't need a receipt from the seller to do that. Are you sure you know what it means to keep records?
Not that it matters because this doesn't affect you in any way as you're not profiting from your sales.
I also used to run a lucrative software company and kept fastidious records with that, so it's not like I don't know what I'm doing in the small business area.
Then you should know the difference between revenue and profit and that you only pay taxes on profit, not on revenue.
This actually confuses a lot of people. I suspect that's because of all the misinformation certain groups like to spread about taxes. Did you know that some people actually think that reducing the company income rate will result in the business having more money to invest in the business? It's obviously idiotic, but a lot of people believe it because they were told that it was true.
Re: (Score:3)
I am completely aware of the difference between profit and revenue but as you say a lot of people are not. The entire problem is that this new law assumes everything is revenue and you are 1099'd on your GROSS sales and then it's up to you to prove whether is profit or not. You're assumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent more or less. That's what is unfair and onerous about it. It places the burden of knowing and PROVING that essential difference onto hobby sellers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious how each company is going to determine what is "repayment from a friend" and what is "business income."
I don't know how Venmo does it - I avoid them like the plague - but Zelle actually asks you whether it's business or personal whenever you initiate a payment.
Re: (Score:3)
Guess who is making them hide shit in the bill? The wealthy, who fund both parties. If you think the Republicans aren't even more in bed with big money, you are deluded.
But I am really curious. What, exactly, do you think Build Back Better does to "fundamentally change America?" It's the most milquetoast nothingburger of an infrastructure bill I've ever seen. It does nothing to fundamentally change anything. It could have come from wither party, and the only reason Republicans oppose it, is because they nee
Re:As per democrats' request (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As per democrats' request (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, big business supports dems more than reps, at least with reportable donations.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, name one actual policy Republicans have attempted to implement in the past decade.
Oh come on spun, they've had so much stuff like a new health care bill that's been only two weeks away for years, only those wily Democrats have been stopping it! Why, in Trump's last year in office he dropped an EO that made insulin super cheap for everybody. I mean, it was in the news, so it happened, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: As per democrats' request (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: As per democrats' request (Score:4, Insightful)
What kind of democratic process mixes up laws that have nothing to do with each other into the same vote? Aren't laws supposed to stand up & be voted on on their own merits?
This has been going on in the USA for at least 100 years - omnibus bills that contain all sorts of crap unrelated to the supposed purpose of the bill. I don't know that clear and targeted legislation has EVER been a thing in the USA. There are arguments for doing this (in order to get support for A we need to include B) but I do not find them persuasive.
Really there should be a procedural regulation that requires a statement of purpose at the start of the bill, and then everything in the bill should reflect that. Then at least you would need to argue out in the open that the tax break for left-handed anglers in Maine is important for a bill on regulating railroad level crossings for school buses. ("I'm just a bill. Yes, I'm only a bill."....)
Re:As per democrats' request (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how Slashdotters turn conservative when the money is being taken from their own pockets.
Pay up. There's a social program out there somewhere that needs your tax dollars.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Again, this is not a tax increase. This only affects people who were lying about their income and cheating on their taxes.
Also, Slashdot heavily leans right between the trolls and the libertarians. Liberals here are few and far between.
Re: (Score:3)
We'll trade you. Close the carried interest loophole and repeal this reporting requirement. I'll happily write my Reps/Senators in support of that.
Re:As per democrats' request (Score:5, Insightful)
But, I thought the Dems were all only going after taxes that the "over $400K" crowd was doing, so as to make them pay their "fair share"?
disclosure, I'm not thrilled about this change either
but you're conflating potential tax rate increases with making sure people pay taxes that they already owe but are able to avoid by not reporting income
what the dems are supposedly keen on is not increasing effective tax rates on people who make less than 400k
whereas this simply shuts down one way businesses were able to avoid taxes on income by not reporting that income, which legally they were always supposed to do and not reporting it was a crime/tax evasion
an valid comparison would be people who get paid "under the table" and don't report that as income
but one specific to me case is I pay my cleaning lady with pay pal, she may report that, she may not, but if she doesn't currently, then this will affect her tax bottom line not because her rates are going up, but simply because now income she was always getting and should have always been paying taxes on will be reported to the IRS and she'll have no way to avoid paying that tax (that again, she should have always been paying)
Re: (Score:2)
you're conflating making sure people pay the taxes they actually owe under current tax policy versus increasing taxes rates on >400k earners
but then again, you are a moron so it's not particularly surprising
Re: As per democrats' request (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But, I thought the Dems were all only going after taxes that the "over $400K" crowd was doing, so as to make them pay their "fair share"?
Nothing has changed. This isn't a tax increase, this is just about honestly reporting income.
This changes absolutely nothing for honest people who were correctly reporting their income. This only affects liars and tax cheats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Registering as a business does not make you a business to the IRS. They have rules for determining what is a legitimate business.
Re: (Score:3)
He's latched on to right-wing conspiracy the way he used to be attached to Apple. He's just one gold-fringed flag away from declaring himself a sovereign citizen. It's best to just ignore him.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
$600 payments aren't targeted at the billionaires like they tried to claim. These amounts are solidly targeted at violating the financial privacy of everyone which is why I expect they'll be shut down as blatant constitutional violation in the form of an illegal search by the courts.
Heh... Do you have some case law to support the conclusion that reporting one's income is an illegal search, counselor, and does it involve "gold fringe" and "admiralty" and "FIRSTNAME:LASTNAME is a corporation"?
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to this act a warrant would have been required to obtain these records and the courts have shutdown those fishing expeditions when they were not in pursuit of a specific offense with probable cause. There is nothing about WHY a warrant is required that congress has the prerogative to change.
$600 of cumulative transactions over the course of a year or they dis
Re: This really hurts the poor (Score:2)
The threshold already existed at $10K and precedent established. This just lowers the threshold and expands to more types of money-transfer companies that didnâ(TM)t exist when the original requirements were written.
Thereâ(TM)s no constitutional right to hide your financial activities from the IRS. In fact, if operating with cash, youâ(TM)re legally required to self-report.
Youâ(TM)re going to have to come up with a much better line of reasoning as to why the courts would have grounds to
Re: (Score:2)
The threshold of $10k applied to a single transaction with the basis being that the this was an uncommonly high amount and itself probable cause to suspect some sort of taxable event and only applied to disclosure of that single event. In otherwise this represented a balance between the rights of taxpayers and minimizing unreasonable search. That can hardly be claimed of a $600 cumulative annual total transaction value which results in total
Re: (Score:2)
>The threshold of $10k applied to a single transaction
Nope - in fact there's lots of guidance and requirements about banks reporting amounts under $10K to catch suspicious activity of people making smaller payments to avoid triggering the threshold. (I've had to complete the training on this while doing work for banking clients even though I had nothing to do with transaction processing or reporting- it's standard compliance stuff these days).
> But there is a constitutional right to have my business i
Re: (Score:3)
We are talking about tax evasion. That's exactly what this $600 threshold is targeting.
You want to keep moving the goalposts?
All income must be reported and is taxable, that has over a century of case law to protect it. Requiring third party financial processors to disclose their data also has well-established precedent. If banks do not voluntarily disclose, then they risk liability for criminal financial activities processed through them (Bank Secrecy Act of 1970).
I repeat - the Constitution does not provi
Re: (Score:2)
The threshold of $10k applied to a single transaction
No - that applied to the whole tax year. You're thinking of bank deposits, where any over $10k have to be reported. This is the one where payment processors issue a 1099-K if you receive money totaling over a certain threshold in a given tax year.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they are quite welcome to cross the border and go back home to where they are legal citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's solidly targeted at middle income and lower. Who among the middle class doesn't sell the odd item or three for a little pocket change every once in a while? I'm a toy and model collector and tend to sell older items to buy new. Most of the time losing money. Now I'll need to prove to the IRS what I paid for something, and what I sold it for, or I get sales tax when I buy and income tax when I sell. I'm betting they're doing this thinking most people will be too lazy to track costs and report them,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Real income is already reported.
So basically you are complaining about nothing?
targeted at violating the financial privacy
What financial privacy? Dude - you're paying through corporations with money held by corporations on a completely commercial network run by corporations.
What F-in-ancial privacy? Every fraction of a cent you pay online gets recorded dozens of times before you even get the receipt of your payment.
You think all those corporations are not already reporting all that to the government while using your actions to mine you for metadata they then sell to other corp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cash (Score:3)
fixes this
Re: A pity you don't have any ... (Score:3)
You can pretty much thank progressives for that. They fundamentally think the government has the right to know of every single transaction you ever make, and in some cases act as though it should be a matter of public record. Just look at the way they went after Trump's tax returns (it isn't as if the IRS wouldn't have known if he cheated on his taxes) and look at how badly they want to ban cryptocurrency.
The way they see it is that you have no need to keep that information private unless you have something
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, most other first world countries are policed "by consent," and consider the US to be policed "by force."
Re:A pity you don't have any ... (Score:4, Informative)
In the US we have a system of checks and balances to peacefully resolve situations like we currently find ourselves in. I expect this will be settled by the supreme court.
Similarly if they change the senate rules to pass measures which will allow them to freely stuff ballot boxes. This is what the measures of the current party are designed to do, voting records are public records as they found out with their 'voting report card' drives and not only are they trying to federalize elections and election standards but they are trying to mandate legalized ballot harvesting (I can request a ballot for someone else) and eliminate all integrity measures that would prevent them from filling out the ballot for someone else and submitting it on their behalf. In other words, request for all the people who rarely vote or infiltrate the two or three organizations outsourced the responsibility for managing deceased voter lists so you can request on their behalf as well as those who've recently moved out of state, fill out those ballots for their guy and mail it in. Their defense is that voter fraud is rare and there is no evidence (in spite of any evidence). Even if the evidence supported that it would only mean getting caught was rare and wouldn't justify making it easier to commit this sort of fraud without getting caught.
Somehow measures which require a social security number (issued upon gaining citizenship automatically) or the last few digits of an identification number (free to obtain) and have been declared racist partisan efforts on the basis of a spurious claim that statistically writing down numbers somehow disproportionately impacts people based on their skins natural SPF protection.
For awhile they claimed they weren't actually against ID requirements then they went back to claiming they negatively impacted disadvantaged people of color by coming up with all sorts of ridiculous costs like an attorney bill to fill out the little form you use to indicate you don't have the means to pay the $5 fee at the MVD so you can get the license free and lost wages, etc to show how 'expensive' it actually was. Why it supposedly takes an attorney to fill out a simple standardized form with your own personal details I have no idea.
Re: (Score:3)
In my country it is easier to get a firearm than it is to get healthcare.
I'm guessing you're not American then.
In America, you have to be 18 to purchase a firearm [atf.gov], but children do indeed get healthcare from pediatricians.
In America, convicted felons cannot possess a firearm [legalmann.com]. The rules vary from state to state (and I don't know them all), but nearly every state disallows convicted felons on probation to own a gun, and in other states (like the linked Nevada), violent criminals are prevented from owning a gun for the rest of their lives, unless they get a pardon. Those criminals,
Re: (Score:3)
In America, you have to be 18 to purchase a firearm [atf.gov], but children do indeed get healthcare from pediatricians.
I received my 22 as a gift when I was 14. And have gone hunting (legally) starting from age 16. (yes, I'm from the US. I've only traveled outside of the US a handful of times, as is typical of most Americans)
In America, convicted felons cannot possess a firearm
Technically you can still buy C&R firmarms as a felon. I used to buy shot and powder from a ex-con at the local flea market.
In America, federal law requires a background check
Ever applied for health insurance outside of an employer provided one? There is a tremendous amount of paperwork, including how long you've been without insurance, your prior i
Re:A pity you don't have any ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many Americans' idea of "freedom" starts and stops at 2A.
I'd say that's a true statement, unfortunately--but I'd say that many other Americans idea of freedom consists of "things I like and support, anything I don't like or support should be illegal." Progressives have been trying to subvert the first amendment for some time now and many equate "speech" with "violence." Frankly, BOTH of those groups need a huge kick in the ass.
Who cares about 1,4,5,6,8
/me raises hand.
no, can't have those people talking about that damn cee arr tee, can we?
Talk about it all you want. When you decide that it's part of elementary school public education, it ceases to be a first amendment issue (i.e. protected speech) and you're damned right we're going to have a conversation (where "have a conversation" means "discuss the merits or lack thereof" and not "you silently listen and respectfully nod at my brilliant ideas") about what you get to teach in school. Note, many will attempt to frame an opposition to CRT as "not wanting to teach real history" but most people on my side of this argument are saying no such thing. It's imperative that we teach about the errors of the past, about the abhorrent institution of slavery, about Jim Crow, about the Klan and their ilk who intimidated and murdered those who fought for equality or just plain tried to vote. No, the opposition is firmly in response to the notion that we must frame everything in terms of race, and that all white people are racist and just can't help themselves. CRT proponents are, by far, the biggest racists in the room, and people like me are going to call you out for it.
Do you remember, "I have a dream, that my little children will someday be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?" Race based everything is the opposite of Dr. King's dream, and that's downright shameful.
Blue lives matter!
They matter exactly as much as every other life. It's become somehow "racist" to state that all lives matter, but they do--equally. Black lives matter, white lives matter, pick-an-ethnicity lives matter, and yeah, blue lives matter too. If you think that's racist, I don't know what to tell you.
We need to give them cops the right to stop terrorists and search those dope dealers! Yeah!
Look in the mirror on this one, because your (I presume, and apologize if I'm incorrect) side of the aisle is doing their level best to paint anyone on my side of the aisle as a deplorable insurrectionist. The current FBI has been poking their nose into political matters in a way they haven't since the early 70s, but apparently it's ok this time because they're on the "correct" side.
Re: (Score:3)
You're comparing something delegated to you at birth, to a profession that's chosen.
So what? We're discussing the value of life. Delegation at birth, choice of profession, that's meaningless in this context. However, to some people, it's unacceptable to note that all lives matter--it infuriates them that you would dare say so.
that comparison isn't just dumb but also seems disingenuous.
I believe you're the one being disingenuous here. You're acting like the use of these terms has not been a thing in our society for the last 5+ years, and that I've somehow generated this from whole cloth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hate to break it to you, but despite what Twitter may tell you, "Nazi" is not a synonym for "political opponent".
Hell the right tends to be very, very pro-Israel which whether you agree with that stance or not, is undeniably about as far from Nazi-ism as you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
This is unrelated to that $10k rule. This $10k rule [wikipedia.org] was passed in 2008 and took effect for the 2011 tax year.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that you're misinformed so much as it is that your completely uninformed...
"I don't care for privacy because I have nothing to hide"
Nothing has changed here. You've always been required to report your income to the IRS. For honest people, this should actually make things easier.
but I still don't want all my purchases known to the taxman.
The IRS doesn't care about your purchases. They only care about your income. No one is reporting your purchase history to the IRS. I don't know what crack-pot conspiracy blog gave you such a confused idea, but it's not even a little coherent.
[...] I don't want advertisers to know.
Then why are you using services l