"... and more than $7.5 trillion over the next decade.... The government has a basic obligation to enforce the law and to crack down on this epidemic of tax fraud. The failure to do so means that the burden of paying for public services falls more heavily on wage earners than on business owners, exacerbating economic inequality. The reality of widespread cheating also undermines the legitimacy of a tax system that still relies to a considerable extent on Americans’ good-faith participation.... ...Charles Rossotti, who led the I.R.S. from 1997 to 2002... that Congress needs to... [create] a third-party verification system for business income.... Under his plan, the government would require banks to produce an annual account statement totaling inflows and outflows, like the 1099 tax forms that investment firms must provide to their clients.... The money is undoubtedly in chasing wealthy tax cheats, but equity argues that business income, like wage income, should be subject to a uniform reporting standard.... Consider what happened after Congress passed legislation in 1986 to require taxpayers to list a Social Security number for each person claimed as a dependent.... The next year, seven million children abruptly disappeared from tax returns.... The government can crack down on crime, improve the equity of taxation — and raise some needed money in the bargain. There are many proposals to raise taxes on the rich. Let’s start by collecting what they already owe."
१३४ टिप्पण्या:
Let's start with all of the illegals sending untaxed cash out of the country.
serious Question
How Long, before it is a Felony, to use Cash Money?
NYT complimenting a Reagan policy?
And all of the unreported tip income?
"How Long, before it is a Felony, to use Cash Money?"
Not long...
Then banks start charging .1% for all transfer activities to cover the costs of the reporting requirements and suddenly $600 billion in "untaxed income" ends up in Bank of America's pockets.
@Xmas
Correct.
Businesses don't pay taxes.
What, exactly, is the connection between my paying taxes and government spending?
Virtually everyone hates paying taxes. Leave it to the NY Times to come out on the wrong side of another issue.
I’d like to see welfare / govt benefits get a 1099 just so we can tally how much each individual gets from the govt. free school lunches, SSI pmnts, Section 8 housing, college grants, food stamps, earned income credits, etc.
The failure to do so means that the burden of paying for public services falls more heavily on wage earners than on business owners, exacerbating economic inequality.
No, the dichotomy isn't between "wage earners" & "business owners". The dichotomy is between the cash & electronic/banked earners, and the break doesn't fall neatly between workers & owners. Indeed, the attempt to crack down on the cash economy by an energized IRS would fall heavily on minorities, especially the Latino community.
I can't believe the NYT doesn't know this. I think that this is one more attempt by the NYT to make their misguided readership believe that the money for all those Democratic social programs is out there, and it's being hidden in mattresses by evil rich people like Donald Trump. All we have to do is find those mattresses & the Feds will be awash in money.
Uhhhh-huh.
The Government will spend what it will spend, regardless of the mount of taxes collected.
Wages are reported. Payments from charge card companies are reported. Payments from businesses to non-corporate businesses and to individuals providing services in excess of $600 are reported. Partnership income is reported. Legal settlements and real estate closings are reported. Restaurants report the tips to their waitpersons.
The IRS can access bank records whenever they believe not all income is being reported. There is already a procedure to turn in people you think are cheating on their taxes and get a percentage of the resulting examination.
The most common tax fraud out there is people reporting false income to qualify for Earned Income Credit refunds or unemployment benefits.
serious Question
How Long, before it is a Felony, to use Cash Money?
It may not be a felony. But cash is effectively impossible to use for a major transaction. Try to walk into a car dealership with $40k in US $ and by a car.
You cant deposit $10,000 cash into your account without generating a legal investigation that will suspend your constitutional rights. Cash is legal tender, but using it is now probable cause to get a search warrant. Maybe a constitutional expert can explain it to me.
Consider what happened after Congress passed legislation in 1986 to require taxpayers to list a Social Security number for each person claimed as a dependent.
Consider what would happen if Congress passed legislation to require voters to provide valid identification for each vote cast.
Or we could reject the fantasy that government provides anything even remotely approximating value for our tax dollars. Or we could amend the Constitution to remove the amendment authorizing a federal income tax (temporarily, of course, to fund a war, don'tcha know).
This editorial makes zero sense to me. What is being proposed won't cause additional taxes to fall on business owners, and certainly not on corporations. All I can figure is the NYTimes is calling cash operations like drug dealing and prostitution businesses, but they will just using banks altogether. The people who the taxes will fall on are probably poorer than average- people who aren't declaring cash income but still have bank accounts- waitstaff, lawncare people, strippers, babysitters, etc.
A better headline: "Increase tax revenues with this one weird trick!"
The issue is cash businesses- restaurants and hair salons, you know, that rich people run.
An attack on 1099 employment, a mainstay of contractors in the tech biz.
Trying to make it difficult to hire people on a project basis. Everybody has to be a payroll employee.
Yeah, so even if they capture all that unpaid tax, plus add in the tax increase their talking about, in 10 years they'll have raised less than $10 trillion. Meanwhile the debt, today, is at $28 trillion and they will be spending north of $4 trillion every one of those upcoming 10 years.
So that revenue they'll be so glad to talk about over the next 10 years won't be a drop in bucket of what will be needed when the 10 years is up.
Quite right Pete. Government revenue inflows and expenditure outflows are wholly disconnected from each other. Let's stop pretending there is some important relationship between the two, our "leaders" did a long time ago.
You wanna know what I bet is also hiding behind this NYT postulate of all this "unreported income"? I bet that someone along the way is counting "disbursement from corporate profits" by business owners, which is under most circumstances perfectly legal & a standard accounting practice, as "unreported income" because disbursement from corporate profits is not subject to standard wage employment taxes (SS, Medicare, etc).
I also wouldn't be surprised if they have it in for Subchapter S corporations.
The LA Times had a story (pre Trump) estimating that 40% of the economic activity in the LA basin is off the books. Cash is king.
YH, you could be correct, but it won't matter since, as you write, this is perfectly legal and proper accounting.
"Try to walk into a car dealership with $40k in US $ and by a car."
Try finding a new car less than $40k these days : )
As for all of the unreported income...this is something that is rampant in third-world countries when the government regulations are onerous.
Chicken/egg?
I can't believe the NYT doesn't know this.
@YoungHegelian, I can. There is a real world, and a vastly different world that people like Cookie, Althouse, and the people who write for the New York Times inhabit. In the unreal world where they live the illegal — or “undocumented” — immigrants are wonderfully law-abiding and carefully report all their income and pay all their taxes, especially employment taxes. Yup. The only unreported income is from small business owners. Yup.
Is this the IRS that was targeting conservatives? Is this the government that is unfairly prosecuting conservatives for Jan6 but providing bail money for BLM murderers?
And exactly what is their problem, they just printed 4 TRILLION dollars to give to their cronies, since WHEN did a balance sheet mean anything to our government.
The government at all levels has an insatiable appetite for tax revenue. Witness the Democrat legislators of Washington State. They've propose new taxes for a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a capital gains tax that they say isn't an income tax but is an excise tax, an increase in the gas tax and a removal of the 1%/year increase in total property taxes. Give them a $1 and they'll find ways to spend $2.
@Joe Smith,
this is something that is rampant in third-world countries when the government regulations are onerous.
Not just 3rd world countries! The underground cash economies are yuuuuuuuuggggge in 1st world countries like e.g. France & Italy, exactly because the employment & labor regulations are so onerous.
The Left always needs to remember -- the Laffer Curve is a very real thing!
The new class war. The overproduced elites advancing their class interests by continuing to attack small business owners. More lawyers for those small businesses that survive and more diversity consultants for the Amazons of the world with more money than they know what to do with. This has been prophesied.
As Milton Friedman once said that corporation officers may send out the check to the IRS, but the taxes are paid by its employees, customers, and stockholders.
"Not just 3rd world countries! The underground cash economies are yuuuuuuuuggggge in 1st world countries like e.g. France & Italy, exactly because the employment & labor regulations are so onerous."
I've been to Italy many times. First world is stretching it.
I describe Italy as 'A third-world country with first-world aesthetics.'
: )
Interest rates are so low that I think Treasuries report original issue discount on bonds now. It used de minimis, but it's half the yield these days. Still de minimis though.
YoungHegelian said...
I think that this is one more attempt by the NYT to make their misguided readership believe that the money for all those Democratic social programs is out there, and it's being hidden in mattresses by evil rich people like Donald Trump.
Wait! I thought the standard leftist belief was that Trump was a con-artist who didn't really have any money! Now his mattress is the reason for unrealized tax revenues?! Wha' happened?!
"Let's start with all of the illegals sending untaxed cash out of the country."
Why not start with all the wealthy sending untaxed cash out of the country? There's a lot more money there.
The next year, seven million children abruptly disappeared from tax returns
When this phenomenon occurs in the voting system, it is referred to as voter suppression.
NYT is just preparing the ground for attacks on a certain Queens-born real estate magnate who has used every available lawful means to avoid paying taxes. The word 'lawful' will never be mentioned in the Times's campaign.
I guess we need to figure out a way to tax drug dealers.
Of course, the NYT knows that this is all about legalizing drugs and making most of those sales taxable.
Robert Cook said...
Why not start with all the wealthy sending untaxed cash out of the country? There's a lot more money there.
Tell me how that works Cookie.
1. Taxation is theft.
2. Corporations don't pay taxes: they collect them.
3. The government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.
4. A republic can last only so long as the people's representatives can resist looting the Treasury to reward themselves and their allies.That train left the station one hundred years ago. Now they have finally stopped pretending.
5. The 16th and 17th Amendments, the Progressive Era amendments, have done much to destroy the republic.
6. Government is not about "caring" or "helping," it is about power.
Thus endeth the lesson. Thanks be to God.
---Try finding a new car less than $40k these days : ). [Joe Smith]
Ah, such world-weariness. But.... the Ford F-150s were the best-selling car or truck recently, and some of the models are priced in the $30s.
The Toyota Camry was the best-selling family sedan in America for a number of years, may still be. Prices for basic in the $20s, going up into mid-$30s. Toyota RAV-4 huge seller, priced with normal package for $35K. Toyota Corolla, one of the top sellers, $23K.
They might be too boring for you, though.
Robert Cook said...Why not start with all the wealthy sending untaxed cash out of the country? There's a lot more money there.
Start with the largest shareholder of the NYT whose net worth plummeted on Trump's election and soared with Biden's fortunes. Unless you think those pickin's are too Slim.
"---Try finding a new car less than $40k these days : ). [Joe Smith]
Recently bought a new VW Alltrack for a little over $25k.
"Tell me how that works Cookie."
Me too. I'm all ears.
I wonder if Hunter Biden has any unreported income.
I mean,during his child support trial he claimed zero income.
After the trial ended, he bought a ferrari, or some other luxury sports car.
Funny, that.
The LA Times had a story (pre Trump) estimating that 40% of the economic activity in the LA basin is off the books. Cash is king.
>>
It's not necessarily that cash is king in LA, but EVERY SINGLE person of note is running a "business" that is incorporated/LLC in Nevada/Wyoming/South Dakota to avoid state income taxes. Kanye for example is technically based in Wyoming. Even down to a third string NHL player I know personally is incorporated outside of California to avoid CA taxes, at a minimum.
In the Bay Area, smart people move to Nevada or WA State and take a year off before cashing in their stock options.
If you don't do this, you are a chump, as Biden said.
Since the Government refuses to enforce immigration laws to benefit political parties and corporate donors, I really don't give a damn about who is obeying tax laws.
That opinion piece is based on work by an ex-IRS guy and Larry Summers and some foreign chick which is based on a W.A.G. the IRS made in 2010.
If I'm reading it right the bulk of that missing 600 billion is from individual filers earning over $400,000 annually who don't report all the income they should be reporting.
That would be Doctors and Lawyers and Blogger Hostesses* and Harvard grads and such. Elite America. Not your yard guy.
I guess they are just a bunch of damn crooks.
Also, there's a push on to give the IRS an extra 100 billion. Lizzie W. is in on it and this is a one more part of a promotional exercise.
* Referring of course to Ms Kardashian.
Why does the government need taxes, can't they just print money?
What is amazing is that many Americans don't cheat on taxes. That may change given the growing rift between the government and much of the country.
Loss of belief in the decency of Government causes people to resist being taxed to support it.
The Government is behaving indecently, favoring one race over others, spending as if there were no limits, demanding that we believe things we know are untrue, eroding freedoms Americans cherish, etc.
So it is no wonder that the citizens are fed up with it.
If they want to restore faith in Government, they need to back off and let us be.
That opinion piece is based on work by an ex-IRS guy and Larry Summers and some foreign chick which is based on a W.A.G. the IRS made in 2010.
>>
Exactly. A variant of this article pops up every year around tax time oddly enough.
blah blah blah "loopholes" blah blah. All legal.
To my above example of incorporating in another state if you live in CA and are an artist/actor etc like Kanye, it's legal and you're not avoiding anything. All the income is reported. It's just not taxed by CA, because, well, you're generating the income in Wyoming.
Close "loopholes" means raising taxes, and well, people like Kanye will just re-incorporate somewhere else.
It's a big world.
You're a sucker if you're making enough money and paying full fat US Federal and state taxes as if you were a wage slave.
So don't be a sucker.
I suppose we have "experts" at work again.
I don't read the New York Times, but the assurance with which they toss numbers around in this excerpt is surprising, given that they are saying that there are no reports of income, gain, and loss to rely on. If they have reports, go assess taxes where owed. All I can tell you is that all of my income is reported to the federal government by third party institutions.
Also, this past year has been an exercise in tossing money out of helicopters to the American people. I doubt many people have a good idea what their taxable income is after the various states got done butchering their livelihoods and the federal government gave them supplemental something.
Unreported income might be a big deal, but then why are we letting all those undocumented people into the country? Maybe they should get a tax ID number before they are released into the community. Also, a part of the tax reforms could be that you have to provide proof that you have filed a tax return before you can vote.
Finally, corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Employees, customers, and shareholders.
"Why not start with all the wealthy sending untaxed cash out of the country? There's a lot more money there."
Governor JB Pritzker to the life! Well, it was really his grandfather that set up all those off-shore trusts. Fatso has a pretty big estate in the Bahamas, though. I suppose he drops in there to visit his money.
Governor JB Pritzker to the life! Well, it was really his grandfather that set up all those off-shore trusts. Fatso has a pretty big estate in the Bahamas, though. I suppose he drops in there to visit his money.
>>
Even then, those trusts were set up with after tax dollars.
the lazy liars at the NYT just recycle their old shit.
They assume that every trust is set up somehow with money that hasn't been taxed.
That's 100% bullshit and stupid.
It's been taxed at some level.
The money might be parked offshore but when repatriated to the USA and spent it is taxed.
Yeah you can try to bring the money back into the USA without paying taxes; good luck with that.
FYI. the best tax regime is to incorporate your biz in Puerto Rico and hire at least 5 PR residents.
You're welcome.
Is that when identity fraud started in earnest.
"---Try finding a new car less than $40k these days : ). [Joe Smith]
He wasn't saying you can't buy a car for under $40k. He was saying you can't pay in cash.
People arent putting that money in the bank they are paying expenses.
These are the tax rules both carlos slims and chaim saban has employed in the past.
Well, the gov't response to covid has permanently closed approx 100,000 businesses in the past year. So it should be easier to track down the remaining profitable ones and threaten their owners.
That would be Doctors and Lawyers and Blogger Hostesses* and Harvard grads and such. Elite America. Not your yard guy.
Doctors, unless they have cash practices, are out of luck. mThere is no one more regulated. There are more and more going to cash practices. Hmmm.
They have foreclosed receipt of rental income, through various means everything has to be digital meaning virtual.
Oh my, give $100 mil to the IRS and they'll end up cracking down on the poor shlubs with 1099 income from DoorDash. And those AirBnB smart alecks. Lol
Bring it on.
Someone has to kick in the real money for the U.S. government to pay those interest payments on the debt that is owned by Communist China.
That is exactly the point,
Hsbc launders 10s of billions in drug profits and judge gleeson gives them mulligan after mulligan
“I also wouldn't be surprised if they have it in for Subchapter S corporations.”
If you can evade the IRS with a Sub-S, it is only because they don’t adequately correlate the information they already have on you. The Sub-S corporation is required to file a form 1120-S every year, showing income, expenses, etc, along with a K-1 (1120-S) for each stockholder, showing the 1120-S information pro rated by ownership or profit/loss proportion. K-1s also are supposed to be filed for partnerships, etc. The K-1 income then is required to be reported on the tax payer’s 1040 (or 1120 for C Corps). The problem seems to be that the IRS is not very good at correlating the various forms they receive for and from taxpayers.
I should note that this isn’t a new problem. I worked in the Decennial Census Division of the Census Bureau in the run up to the 1980 Decennial Census. We got all of those IRS forms from the IRS, and merged them, to help improve our address lists (we got address information anywhere we could find it - including state records, commercial databases, etc). We had the only merged and correlated set of IRS records in existence. I talked to a computer savvy IRS agent a year or so ago, and they still apparently have gaping holes in their consolidated taxpayer records forty years later. Ever wonder why letters from the IRS often look like they were printed with dot matrix or earlier printers, with nothing fancy? Because much of the software was written based on obsolete black and white (or black and green) monitors, like those we used at Census back in the latter 1970s. They continue to layer new requirements and capabilities on top of that long obsolete code, but just port it, generation by generation. They have taken tens, if not hundreds, of billions from the taxpayers over the decades to clean up their mess of a computer system, to no discernible benefit. They weren’t able to tie K-1s to 1040s back in 1978, and aren’t apparently always able to do it now either. Ditto for 1099s, reporting dividends, etc. Heck, my fourth brother, with my father before him, maintains a typewriter for one reason - to type up the four 1099-DIVs our company files every year for its four stockholders, which are mailed into the IRS, and supposedly scanned and OCRed at some point. OCRing in 2021, when everything else is digitally submitted. We would love to have some sort of more modern alternative. But last I knew, the IRS was showing that we had a credit for the 2019 taxes we paid, but that our 2019 tax return hadn’t been filed - even though they were in the same envelope. And never got the two 2019 replacement 1040s we filed either.
I wonder if David Brooks reported all his side job income like the big bucks he got from the Aspen Institute?
Obviously this is a spoonfed meme and a stalking horse for initiatives the Dems will soon launch
The situation with foreign bank accounts has changed dramatically as FACTA has been passed in the interim. These are not the issue any longer
Note that there are no requirements to disclose or declare foreign real estate holdings and investment through offshore LPs (unless one controls the foreign entity). In theory, income from such holdings (rental income on property, investment income) must be declared,
but the IRS has a hard time tracking this down.
Remember Charlie Rangel and his property in the Dominican Republic (undeclared rental income) or Chris Dodd and his Irish pile?
If these amount had been invested in simple bank accounts (with income undeclared), Rangel would have been fined millions and sent to jail....but it was a condo, so no problem
"They might be too boring for you, though."
You are correct : )
How about taxing every dollar that leaves this country and goes to Mexico at 80%?
That will keep money in the country and spent here.
Of course, it might cause more people to come, so it might only work with an actual border.
What Obama wanted to do was target small businesses, sole proprietors and contractors, imposing digital record keeping at every step in the process. These firms lean Republican and cheat horribly on taxes (padding deductions and underreporting income), though few are in the “1 percent”.
But millionaire taxes always target people making a few hundred thousand and anything targeting the 1 percent will be aimed at political enemies and not the tech bros (who fund the Dems)
Obviously this is a spoonfed meme and a stalking horse for initiatives the Dems will soon launch
>>
Doubt it.
As you point out, Democrats are the main beneficiaries of illegal tax schemes, like Rangel, Dodd, Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, and last but not least Hunter Biden just straight up illegally evading taxes.
I doubt they'll even bother with the theater on this one.
Like I said, this is an annual article.
random example: 2015:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/business/economy/for-the-wealthiest-private-tax-system-saves-them-billions.html
2018:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/rich-people-are-getting-away-not-paying-their-taxes/577798/
2017:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/01/super-rich-evade-on-average-nearly-third-of-their-due-tax
Treeamigo: what evidence do you have that small businesses horribly underreport their taxable income?
We have one standard deduction now, they were all consolidated.
"undocumented"
Yes rangel was head of ways and means dodd the banking committee, no conflict.
What is the big surprise? You want to see a big smile on a restaurant owner in a little French village? Pay your bill in cash.
I do think that panic is starting to appear in New York and similar places as the trickle of more well-off people fleeing for more favorable tax jurisdictions becomes a flood. As more people become convinced that technology allows them to work anywhere, New York's tax base is taking a big hit. I encounter a fair number very well-off people in my professional life, and it feels like as many of my acquaintances have permanently moved out of NY-NJ-CT in the past six months as have done so in the last twenty years combined. It really is staggering how quickly it has happened.
Bottom line: If the Feds require banks to report each individual's cash flow, you can be 100% certain that New York will insist on getting those reports, too.
The New York Times says " The government has a basic obligation to enforce the law...".
Really.
But not immigration law, of course.
A few tax scofflaws is a crisis, millions of illegal aliens invading the country doesn't even register.
Democrats are targeting housewives for unreported income. According to some estimates, housewives earn up to a hundred thousand annually and do not report it. Now we know the reason for running that narrative... and rape culture, handmaiden, etc.
I’m not a tax lawyer, so maybe I’m missing something. Isn’t most of the taxable income of the very wealthy derived from sales of stock or real estate? Isn’t that already reported to the IRS on 1099s? What other large category of income is there? Partnership income? I don’t know enough about that to have an opinion. My non-expert impression has always been that the problem is not with people hiding gross income, which is hard todo, but with them creating phony deductions. Is that wrong? Has something in the tax environment changed in the past 40 years?
“ I’m not a tax lawyer, so maybe I’m missing something. Isn’t most of the taxable income of the very wealthy derived from sales of stock or real estate?”
Much of their wealth is in unrealized capital gains. They got their stock, when it wasn’t worth anything, and rode the value up. I think that it was Bezos who taking a $1 million dollar a year salary, when his stock in the company he founded was going up billions a year. That increase in wealth isn’t taxable until actually sold, and many, like Bill and Melinda Gates set up their affairs so that their stock ultimately goes to charities. They can gain some cash along the way by borrowing against their stock. Or they can use that stock as collateral for loans - essentially the same thing.
The problem is that our Constitution was amended a century ago to allow an income tax. But it does not allow our federal government to impose a wealth tax. And the tens of billions of stock appreciation that Bezos garnered thanks to COVID-19, is not income, but increase in wealth. Sen. Fauxhauntis Warren is pushing a wealth tax. She should know better - she apparently taught tax at HLS. I suspect that they are trying into these realized capital gains for increasing taxes by fudging with language. Don’t think it is going to work Constitutionally. Besides, if you are taxed on the increase in your wealth on paper, as would be the case with any wealth tax, what happens when the value of your portfolio goes down? The government would presumably owe you a wealth tax refund, possibly of many millions of dollars. With a stock market crash, that could mean the Treasury being liable for hundreds of billions of dollars - often during they can least afford it. Besides, when the stock market crash accompanies an economic crash, shoving that much borrowed money out of the government is going to just make the crash worse.
@Bruce Hayden: How is the Federal estate tax constitutional as it would appear to be a tax on wealth, not income?
Maybe a review is in order for those few here who haven’t been through this recently, or maybe voted for Biden.
If I have $1k in cash, I have wealth of $1k. If I exchange it for stock (land, or other asset), I am still worth $1k. If that stock goes up to $5k in value, I am now worth $5k. If I sell the stock at that point, I have a gain of $4k, which under out tax code is taxable as a (taxable) Capital Gain (as opposed to other types of income like salaries). If I don’t sell the stock though at that point, I still have the $4k increase in wealth or net worth - which is termed Unrealized Capital Gains. If the stock crashes, and I only get my original investment back, I have no capital gain, and no taxable income under our current system, and if the value decreases below that, I have a Capital Loss. In our current system, capital gains are either Realized (you sold the asset) or Unrealized (you still own the asset - it is a “paper” gain). In our system of taxation, you are taxed on Realized capital gains - the difference between what you paid for an asset and what you sold it for. Before you sell it, you only have paper profits (or losses) with the ownership of an asset. Note that this is true for any of the assets people own, whether it is Amazon stock, your house, your car, or even the clothes on your back (my partner estimates that she has >= $10k in unrealized capital gains in her fur coats).
Under our system of taxation, capital gains (or losses) are only taxable when assets are sold or ownership otherwise is changed (e.g. inheritance). The IRS always gets their cut - it just may take them a long time. For example, the value of most of our common stock in our family corporation will be taxable at our deaths. We have owned it for almost 40 years, since I convinced my father to execute a Tax Freeze (learned about in a Tax class that paid for my MBA many times over) that transferred that class of stock to us, while he retained control, until his death. That is, unless the transfer of the asset out of your name (a “taxable event”) is pursuant to a statutory IRS exception - such as Bill and Melinda Gates, along with Warren Buffet, having transferred stock to the Gates’ charitable foundation. You can exchange some types of assets (such as real property) for similar property, without “realizing” any capital gains - which is why you can keep trading up with your houses, throughout your lifetime, without having to pay taxes every time you sell your old house and buy a new one. The IRS also gives individuals (but not Sub-C corporations) a tax break if you have owned an asset longer than a specific period of time (a year or two). At that point, they become Long Term Capital Gains (or Losses).
Finally, the rules for determining capital gains and losses are fairly straight forward. When I buy that stock (or other asset), the value of the cash I put up is my Basis for the asset. Then, when I sell (etc), the Gain (or Loss) is the difference between the sale price and my Basis in the asset. If instead of stock, I bought real estate instead, and did it with a mortgage loan, I could buy maybe $5k in assets - $1k cash+$4k in mortgage loan. My basis would still be $1k, since Basis is actually Price - Increase in Liabilities (debt). But, if the asset doubles in value, and i sell, I have a $5k capital gain ($10k sales price minus $1k basis minus $4k debt payoff). Contrast that to the case where I didn’t borrow against the asset - doubling the value of a $1k asset to $2k would only have resulted in a $1k gain. The extra gain (or loss) using borrowed money is called (financial) Leverage. Leverage is a two edged sword - you can make a lot of money with it, but it can just as easily wipe you out. In the case I just talked about, if instead of increasing in value, the asset had declined by more than $1k in value (20%), i would no longer have had a Capital Gain, but a Capital Loss, and the property would be “Under Water”. A lot of people discovered this reality with the 2008/9 housing bubble crash.
Blogger MountainMan said...
@Bruce Hayden: How is the Federal estate tax constitutional as it would appear to be a tax on wealth, not income?
Probably a stretch, but you are effectively transferring the stock out of your name at the time of your death, and thus incurring a Capital gain (hopefully). Even if you transfer assets to your heirs, the IRS typically treats it as if you had sold the assets, and then given them the cash.
But here is where it gets interesting. With many assets, the executor of your estate has a couple of choices. He can elect a “stepped up” basis for assets transferred to heirs - which means that the estate essentially pays taxes on the increase in value of assets, and the heirs get the benefit of the increased value as their taxable basis in the asset, or they can select to pass the basis of the asset through, untaxed, with the heirs getting your old basis, along with the asset, and paying taxes using that basis when they sel or transfer the asset. One of the big uses of this “Flow Through” basis is to protect small businesses and (esp) farms, which are often asset rich and cash poor. If the IRS didn’t allow the flow through of the basis of, for example, a family farm, the estate would often have to sell the asset (esp farm) to pay the Estate Tax.
Sometimes though you really want the Stepped Up Basis for inherited assets. We sure did. Having moved the common stock of the family corporation to their five boys (one later died, and the other four inherited his stock) 40 years earlier, before the value of the company had appreciated, my parents’ estates fell below the then current Estate Tax Exemption. That meant that no Estate Tax was due on their estates, with the assets valued at the time of their death, and that our tax basis in the assets we inherited from them is of their deaths.
The Estate Tax, that we now enjoy (or despise), can thus be seen as a tax on Capital Gains, with the Taxable Event for their realization being the death of the taxpayer, except in certain circumstances, when the Basis of assets is allowed to flow through to the heirs inheriting the assets.
“ One of the big uses of this “Flow Through” basis is to protect small businesses and (esp) farms, which are often asset rich and cash poor. If the IRS didn’t allow the flow through of the basis of, for example, a family farm, the estate would often have to sell the asset (esp farm) to pay the Estate Tax.”
One of the things to keep in mind whenever you are looking at our Tax Code is that the Federal Government always gets its taxes. You can postpone taxes on the appreciation of assets, but you cannot do it forever. Some day the tax will be due. The question is when. Some of the complexity in the tax system is to protect this foundational reality. Some of the complexities are to close previous loopholes. Abd some, like Flow Through Basis, to protect against its harshness. But even in that case, the IRS still gets their taxes - it just may take a couple generations. But when that family farm is finally sold, they get their taxes.
“One of the things to keep in mind whenever you are looking at our Tax Code is that the Federal Government always gets its taxes.”
Abd that, in a nutshell, is the justification for the Estate Tax system - to make sure that you can’t avoid taxes through death.
Very Nice Blog. Keep Posting More and More
I encounter a fair number very well-off people in my professional life, and it feels like as many of my acquaintances have permanently moved out of NY-NJ-CT in the past six months as have done so in the last twenty years combined. It really is staggering how quickly it has happened.
>>
My entire work was dealing with "Wall Street"
I can count on one hand the number of clients who remain in NYC.
All have moved to: FL, TX, PR, with a handful to TN, and miscellaneous.
A couple have "moved" back to NYC, but I guarantee you their domicile remains FL.
NYC is Fucked. For at least a generation. Or another Republican/RINOish mayor.
Bruce,
You forgot if you're Zuck and you borrow against your FB shares, you have more than enough money to spend your whole life and never pay taxes on it.
That's what the big boys do, and to some extent the smaller boys.
People who are comparing tax cheating and wealth hiding to voting: You do not understand that voting is so sacrosanct, it is the one area where people will not cheat. And while there may be enough money hidden to fund all the Democratic dream programs, there are not enough illegal votes to change an election.
This makes obvious sense, and if you doubt it you will get kicked out of polite society.
The government has a basic obligation to enforce the law and to crack down on this epidemic of tax fraud.
Funny, when you don't do the first part, you don't get the second. When the "population" understands that the government does not think laws matter any more and don't need to be uniformly enforced, is it any wonder the population starts to follow those same rules?
"Mr. Rossotti says that Congress needs to change the rules, by creating a third-party verification system for business income, too."
-- We can't even get some businesses and states to sign on to having businesses verify that their employees are using valid SSNs and documentation. What makes them think business will sign on for some third-party verification system when the IRS and government so clearly don't understand how businesses work.
Also, I just read the proposed process. It reads: "The IRS would analyze all individual and passthrough returns filed in the previous tax year, determining which returns qualified for the information reporting based on AGI limit, presence of low visibility income and ownership interest in passthrough entities." That's... a huge burden, and would give the IRS and the banks access to practically every interaction you have. It's a huge invasion of privacy. Banks should in no way want the government this much in their business.
To my above example of incorporating in another state if you live in CA and are an artist/actor etc like Kanye, it's legal and you're not avoiding anything. All the income is reported. It's just not taxed by CA, because, well, you're generating the income in Wyoming.
Income is not taxed where the business is incorporated. States use formulas which include the location of property, sales, and payroll to determine the percentage of taxable income their state taxes. There are many fewer methods to avoid tax than in generally understood. The NYT and IRS both promote this ignorance because it allows them to write articles like this.
I don't know exactly what they mean by underreported revenue but that is generally not the issue with large businesses. Large businesses have systems to track these numbers which the IRS has access to. Like Bruce I suspect they are categorizing something in here which doesn't belong to generate outrage among their intentionally ignorant activists.
I also flatly don't believe that investing $100 billion over a decade would increase the agency's collection by $1.4 Trillion, and only in part because the pro-government estimates in these matters are almost always wrong. Reading one of the links (the one to tax notes), where the author complains that it's just so complicated, so we need to hire more IRS lawyers, doesn't even consider the possibility of simplifying the tax code.
Funding to expand the reach and ability of the IRS to enforce the tax laws (including overseas) needs to expand. How far? Up to the point where the last dollar spent brings in less than one dollar of revenue.
But of course this is precisely what Congressmen, who depend upon the wealthy to finance their campaigns, refuse to do.
There is no fraud. It's just a right (?) wing conspiracy to prevent illegals and black people from voting. Oh, we are talking about taxes?
Funding to expand the reach and ability of the IRS to enforce the tax laws (including overseas) needs to expand. How far? Up to the point where the last dollar spent brings in less than one dollar of revenue.
But of course this is precisely what Congressmen, who depend upon the wealthy to finance their campaigns, refuse to do.
Blogger Francisco D said...
"Robert Cook said...
Why not start with all the wealthy sending untaxed cash out of the country? There's a lot more money there.
Tell me how that works Cookie."
Not surprising sine you don't understand how capitalism works in the first place.
What I suspect the NYTs is getting at is the gig economy. There is a lot of money there. This could be the attempt to get employers to start deducting for their 1099 clients. The "rich" are already taxed and their income streams are already well known to the IRS.
"Wherever there is a market, that market will be filled." As immutable as the laws of physics.
- We can't even get some businesses and states to sign on to having businesses verify that their employees are using valid SSNs and documentation. What makes them think business will sign on for some third-party verification system when the IRS and government so clearly don't understand how businesses work.
Businesses will do this because government will punish them if they don't, the same reason they produce W2s and 1099s now. It's a difference is that government doesn't want the laws against illegal workers enforced while the do want income reporting. Laws against illegal workers are a public relations campaign, they aren't intended to be enforced.
Ah, the NYT. It means the argument is in bad faith. The only trick is to figure out how exactly it is in bad faith.
Luke Lea said...
"Funding to expand the reach and ability of the IRS to enforce the tax laws (including overseas) needs to expand. How far? Up to the point where the last dollar spent brings in less than one dollar of revenue."
By all means, yes, we should put our best minds to work searching out that last dollar of untaxed income. Perhaps we can approach the economic success of East Germany where half the population was employed watching the other half.
I feel like if we make tax law LESS complex and easier to comply with, more people will comply and it will be cheaper to find noncompliance. A simpler tax code will probably bring in more money than huge investments in IRS watchdogs.
We must redouble our efforts, comrades.
Matt Sablan said...
I feel like if we make tax law LESS complex and easier to comply with, more people will comply and it will be cheaper to find noncompliance. A simpler tax code will probably bring in more money than huge investments in IRS watchdogs.
3/22/21, 8:37 AM
Silly boy! The tax laws are NOT to raise revenue. The tax laws are for politicians to reward their friends/donors and punish their enemies! Any revenue that actually gets raised is icing on the cake!
The Biden family knows that 90 percent of their income is unreported. They just assume everyone else who is rich got there the same way they did.
Original Mike said...
"Tell me how that works Cookie."
Me too. I'm all ears.
The absolute fastest way to turn any country into a 3rd world country is to implement capital controls.
I'm seeing the word "equity" in there.
The word of the moment.
I am going to point out here that I know a number of people who work under the table, with minimal reported income to Uncle Sam. Almost to a person they favor raising taxes- since they don't pay any, it doesn't hurt them.
I realize the expression is normally almost to a man assumed by the sane to include both men and women, but the majority of under the table workers I know are female. Hence, person.
And if an extra $600 billion were sucked out of the economy by taxes every year, that would have no effect at all on the economy, standard of living, unemployment etc. Right?
“ Bruce,
“You forgot if you're Zuck and you borrow against your FB shares, you have more than enough money to spend your whole life and never pay taxes on it.
“That's what the big boys do, and to some extent the smaller boys.”
Didn’t forget. Thought that it was obvious from my example. Sorry. I’ll do a better job next time.
Matt Sablan:
"That's... a huge burden, and would give the IRS and the banks access to practically every interaction you have. It's a huge invasion of privacy. Banks should in no way want the government this much in their business."
This reminds me of how banks needed to track any f transfers of over $10,000 because they might be terrorists or drug lords laundering money. Which means of course, it became suspicious also to start wire transferring monetary amounts *under* $10,000 because of course someone might be trying to hide their money laundering activities.
I think these laws/rules should apply to political campaigns first. In fact, I think political campaigns need to start following laws about taxes on income and payment of workers, the same laws they foist on the rest of us. They can be our labs, to see which laws really work.
Problem is, the rich will find a way around it. They always do. The ones who will suffer are the waitresses who work their asses off to make good tips, then only report what the restaurant they work for requires as a minimum hourly rate. And the guy who works 8 or more hours at a regular job and then moonlights mowing lawns and doing landscape work and only reporting a portion of that income. In other words, as usual, the working stiffs will suffer and the rich will find loopholes or other investments that do not get taxed. Fight the man. Tip in cash, and pay your landscapers in cash, and do not fill out any 1099 forms for anyone.
“I'm seeing the word "equity" in there.
“The word of the moment.”
Which means only that they get to use their discretion. Get to pick winners and losers, and do it by who is most useful to their cause. . Trump gets thoroughly, but not Biden. If you don’t want to get audited, then give a lot of money to progressive causes, etc. Would the IRS show favoritism? Of course they would - their union is one of the most militant federal employees unions. Remember Lois Lerner? Still has her full pension, despite having been caught wagging war against Tea Party non profit organizations. Indeed, none of the IRS employees involved were apparently ever disciplined for it. Equity.
DavidUW said...
FYI. the best tax regime is to incorporate your biz in Puerto Rico and hire at least 5 PR residents.
You're welcome.
How much do you have to pay them?
Do you need a house in PR to maintain residency? Are there PO Boxes?
Once a resident of PR what is the tax structure like as far as federal income taxes?
I actually want to support the state I live in. They are providing value for the taxes I pay. But I assume they will take donations.
Now that we can work remotely for the most part I want to legally pay the federal government as little as possible. It is just too much of a corrupt regime.
MayBee said...
Matt Sablan:
"That's... a huge burden, and would give the IRS and the banks access to practically every interaction you have. It's a huge invasion of privacy. Banks should in no way want the government this much in their business."
This reminds me of how banks needed to track any f transfers of over $10,000 because they might be terrorists or drug lords laundering money. Which means of course, it became suspicious also to start wire transferring monetary amounts *under* $10,000 because of course someone might be trying to hide their money laundering activities.
I need to check my blockfi account.
This reminds me of how banks needed to track any f transfers of over $10,000 because they might be terrorists or drug lords laundering money. Which means of course, it became suspicious also to start wire transferring monetary amounts *under* $10,000 because of course someone might be trying to hide their money laundering activities.
>>
Correct. Banks have been told for awhile to watch for transfers that add up to more than $10,000, because, suspicions.
Not sure what business you can run and live on that doesn't transfer more money than that, but there you go.
How much do you have to pay them?
>>
Minimum wage or higher, depending on what you hire them to do.
>>
Do you need a house in PR to maintain residency? Are there PO Boxes?
>>
You need to reside there for 183 days to maintain residency. I doubt a PO box would survive a residency audit.
>>Once a resident of PR what is the tax structure like as far as federal income taxes?
>>
You have to pay the local income taxes if you pay yourself wage income, and they are less than high tax states, with the bracket topping out at 33%. Plus self employment tax. However that would be idiotic because you have a 100% exemption from local taxes if your (4% taxed) company pays out its income as a profit distribution.
>>
I actually want to support the state I live in. They are providing value for the taxes I pay. But I assume they will take donations.
>>
Of course they will.
>>Now that we can work remotely for the most part I want to legally pay the federal government as little as possible. It is just too much of a corrupt regime.
>>
I'm not a tax advisor but I know of plenty of stock traders/Wall street types who incorporated their "business" in PR, live there now, and pay 4% in federal taxes on their business income.
The NYT Editorial Board need to GFT
"What is amazing is that many Americans don't cheat on taxes. That may change given the growing rift between the government and much of the country."
Yep. I've seen rumblings in a lot of online forums that, given we are saddled with an illegitimate government now, avoiding and evading taxes as much as possible is one way to withdraw consent.
I suspect this article is a hint of the government's intention to crack down precisely to try to prevent this kind of silent resistance.
Blogger iowan2 said...
"...You cant deposit $10,000 cash into your account without generating a legal investigation..." 3/21/21, 6:10 PM
Correction:
Suspicious activity in excess of $5,000 detected by the bank or an institution is also required to be reported. Problem is that Banks don't know what is 'suspicious deposits'. As a result, in the real World, all Banks automatically report deposits of $5,000 regardless of whether or not they're 'suspicious'. In the old days, people would just deposit $9,999 and skirt this legal requirement. Those days are now gone.
What person smart enough to run a successful business puts their skim in the bank. What do you think empty shoe boxes are for? Of course old school Mafia types always had safes in their basements, those days are gone.
Truth is that there is little to skim, almost 99.99% of retail is credit card ot debit card.
""...You cant deposit $10,000 cash into your account without generating a legal investigation..." 3/21/21, 6:10 PM"
Banks also limit transactions from account type to account type by the same account holder to 4-5 a month lest you run afoul of some monetary restrictions.
So, you're not free to move money from savings to checking or back more than 4-ish times a month. My wife found this out when we were renovating our kitchen.
There is no end to punishing law-abiding people in anticipation of crime.
The fundamental problem here is the money laundering laws. They were originally sold to the public as a way to catch drug dealers depositing bags of cash in the bank. They have since morphed into a way to trap various kinds of white collar criminals without the unpleasant necessity of proving the underlying crimes of securities or tax fraud. Along the way, financial privacy has been in large part destroyed for the vast majority of innocent people along with the handful of white collar criminals. The Biden administration looks like it wants to destroy what's left, by, among other things, requiring corporations to disclose to the government their beneficial owners and now this latest idea of making banks into tax auditors of their customers in addition to being snitches.
What type of world is it where the most fantastic claims of sexual privacy are accepted without question, but financial privacy is trashed?
Simply the tax code... make it fair. People cheat because the code is too complex. By design. just like everything woven into democrat 2000 page crap sandwiches.
or stop yer bellyaching.
- and no one should pay over a 1/4 of their income to the government.
Tax the billionaire Democrat oligarch tech class. fair share and all that.
Indeed, the attempt to crack down on the cash economy by an energized IRS would fall heavily on minorities, especially the Latino community.
I can't believe the NYT doesn't know this.
That's because they are not located in the Latino community.
Robert Cook, One-trick Pony.
Ah, such world-weariness. But.... the Ford F-150s were the best-selling car or truck recently, and some of the models are priced in the $30s.
Not the 4x4s. My 1994 Ford F150 4x4 cost me $20,000 and that was 27 years ago and boy did I get a deal because I worked for a global corporation that purchased Ford vehicles exclusively, so Ford gave our employees the same price as the company's. A new one now costs over $50,000.
Known Unknown said...
Banks also limit transactions from account type to account type by the same account holder to 4-5 a month lest you run afoul of some monetary restrictions.
So, you're not free to move money from savings to checking or back more than 4-ish times a month. My wife found this out when we were renovating our kitchen.
There is no end to punishing law-abiding people in anticipation of crime.
Nope. You can put as much money as you want, in as many translations as you want, from your checking to something else.
Savings Accounts have limits on how many outflows they can undergo per month, as part of the difference between a "savings" account and a "checking" one.
Blame FDR and the New Deal, not money laundering rebus, for that one
“Yep. I've seen rumblings in a lot of online forums that, given we are saddled with an illegitimate government now, avoiding and evading taxes as much as possible is one way to withdraw consent.”
“I suspect this article is a hint of the government's intention to crack down precisely to try to prevent this kind of silent resistance.”
But how?
It’s going to cost a lot of money and take years to ramp up. The IRS theoretically has enough information in their hands to adequately police tax compliance. They just can’t put it all together well enough. That is going to take years, and tens, maybe hundreds,
of billions of tax dollars to adequately address. And you have to train everyone up to speed. That’s going to take years. Keep in mind that this isn’t anything new - they have probably been trying to replace their core software system for decades, maybe better than 3 decades, with little evident success.
In most situations, the basis of an asset is its cost to you. The cost is the amount you pay for it in cash, debt obligations, and other property or services.
“In most situations, the basis of an asset is its cost to you. The cost is the amount you pay for it in cash, debt obligations, and other property or services.”
Good summary. But the exceptions to this rule are a good part of what keeps Bob the Accountant in business. For example, many assets used in trade or business have to be depreciated for Uncle Sam. The idea is that buildings, appliances, etc used to make money, only last so long, before they have to be replaced. The IRS, in their infinite wisdom, may determine that an apartment building will have to be torn down and replaced in 25 years (not quite accurate - used for ease of calculations). You could then take 4% of the purchase price of the building (but not the land underneath it) as an Expense known as Depreciation. Offsetting this Expense is another account known as Accumulated Depreciation. Every year, when you expense 4% of the cost of the building, You add the same amount to Accumulated Depreciation. After 5 years, the Accumulated Depreciation for the building will have risen to (5x4%) 20% of the sale price. After the 25 years, Accumulated Depreciation will be 100% of the purchase price, and you stop accumulating it. The Basis of that building is thus the cost to you (as Bob suggested) minus the Accumulated Depreciation. That means that if you bought an income property for $1.1m (split between $1m for the building and $100k for the land), after those five yours, the Basis for the property has dropped from the initial $1.1m to $900k ($1k land + $1m building - $200k Accumulated Depreciation). Sell it after those 5 years for $1.2m, and your profit is thus $300k ($1.2m - $900k) - but only if used to make a profit. If it is your house we are talking about, the taxable gain would be $100k, since you can’t depreciate personal (just business) assets. And, of course, it isn’t that simple either. For example, you can often depreciate assets more quickly in early years, and less in later years. Making repairs can add to the basis (or can be expensed that year, depending, again, on the whims of the IRS). Different repairs are depreciated over different periods of time - for example, the difference between windows, roofs, and boilers. And don’t get me started on appliances. You would think that if you turn over enough of them a year, you could just simplify things, and expense the new ones every year. You would be wrong. So the Basis for an apartment building also typically includes the Accumulated Depreciation for each damn owner owned major appliance in the building. Knowing how this all works, then keeping track of it, is part of how accountants, like Bob, can afford to send their kids to college.
Remember earlier, when I said that the IRS always gets their taxes, and the question is just when? Depreciation is just another facet of this.
I trust NOTHING the NYT prints.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
Nope. You can put as much money as you want, in as many translations as you want, from your checking to something else.
Savings Accounts have limits on how many outflows they can undergo per month, as part of the difference between a "savings" account and a "checking" one.
Blame FDR and the New Deal, not money laundering rebus, for that one
Yep. Credit unions used to not be subject to that. When I first joined NFCU I dumped all my direct deposit into savings. Each check I wrote- the money would be automatically transferred from savings to checking to cover it. THEN- the banks complained about the unfair competition, and the regulators decided that that "bank" regulation applied to credit unions.
Most people aren't actually aware- Banks, Savings and Loans, and Credit Unions all operate under similar but different regulations.
I avoid doing business with banks. During the 1980s when they were issuing mortgages in teh USA at 13%, they were lending money to South American governments at 4% or less because they were better credit risks then American homeowners.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा