Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupe the Second Sacker
This is too rich. Point of fact. You're the one who said the law isn't new. Please scroll up and read your own words. I'm the one questioning why you're even bringing that up. If your own retort confuses you, how do you expect anyone else to follow it? Here...I'll save you the scroll:
Second, to the defenders of the old/new/revised/whatever enforcement...If it doesn't get the primary offenders, what's the GD point? It's a lot of extra effort for all, with little payoff. The proverbial juice isn't worth the squeeze. If you want to make a difference, abolish cash sales at card shows. Then you'll see some added revenue. Suddenly, every mom & pop dealer in the country has the best sales year of their lives.
|
You don't have a friggin' clue about any of this, do you? I was originally going to respond to every point in your completely idiotic comeback to my earlier post, but I can clearly see that would be a total waste of time and effort. So I'll just address some of the more ridiculous statements/accusations. And this is not to be political at all, but after your one post where you got called out about politics, and then made some specific remarks in your comeback to me about.......well, here's the quote:
"Can this change be interpreted any other way than an effort to stick it to the little guy? The big fish were already being reported (well their non-cash transactions anyway). The people who can't afford to consistently pay $5 for gas and $6 for eggs, who find a way to help subsidize their cost of living expenses (expenses that were much more manageable just a couple years ago) are really going to swing the pendulum in Ukraine's favor? At a time when all Americans are being squeezed, rolling out a plan to squeeze them harder seems a little tone deaf, if not evil...especially when we see the unpopular ways the government spends our money."
You've pretty much sealed the envelope on which political point of view you're with, but still, what a comical bunch of crap you've just spewed. At least now I know I have to dumb down my response to you even more. Hey, I do have to tip my hat to you though in that you at least learned not to mention a particular person or political party in your posts so as to not violate the "no politics" rule. But what is so surprising is that you'd listen to and learn from myself and others on that point, but then totally disregard and blow us off on everything else we were trying to educate you about. But again, now that I know where you're coming from politically, why should I be at all surprised in your overall responses?
Speaking of which, your response to Adam about him being wrong when he, and others like myself, tried to tell you there is no new tax law, just shows your obstinance and ignorance on this topic. Here's another of your quotes I'm going to use to demonstrate the idiocy in your comments and thinking:
"I wonder how many collectors here were ever charged with "tax evasion" for not reporting their under 20K ebay sales? I'll bet none. If nobody is being penalized for it, is it really cheating?"
LOL You just basically asked the age old question/joke, "If a tree falls in the forest, does it still make a sound?" Of course it does, even if there is no one around to hear it. So, what you're basically asking/saying is that if someone who had card sales of under $20K, which didn't get reported to the IRS on a 1099-K form, and as a result doesn't report their sales on their tax return that year, how can they ever be considered guilty of cheating (ie: breaking the law and being a tax evader), right? Well, I have a perfect analogy to hopefully explain this in much simpler terms, which you obviously need to finally understand this.
If you are driving down the street doing 50 MPH, as you pass a sign indicating the speed limit is only 35 MPH, are you breaking the law, even if there isn't a cop with radar on the side of the road to catch you and give you a ticket? Well of course you are, the answer is YES, you're breaking the law! Or are you one of those people who think the law doesn't apply to them, especially if they aren't actually caught? (Which based on your obvious political leanings may explain some of your nonsense.) And here's where the fun part begins. So, it then turns out that people living on that street are upset with all the speeders and worried about their children's safety or getting hit as they back/pull out of their driveways, and so on, and so they complain to the city. And in response, the city goes ahead and installs one of those cameras to catch the speeders since they don't have enough cops to sit on the side of that particular road all day. And then the next day you go driving down the road doing your usual 50 MPH, and end up getting a ticket, to which you start crying and moaning about. The 35 MPH speed limit law had been, and still was, there and in effect all the time. (And this would be like the "old Law" that Adam was referring to.) You just hadn't been caught breaking the law before. But now you go ahead and start bitching and moaning about how it is going to start taking you all this extra time to get where you're going, how stupid it is to have to drive so slow, how this is going to penalize and primarily go after all the local people who actually live on that street, and on and on. And what may even be funnier is if those in the group now complaining about being caught by the speed camera included some of the same people who complained to the city about all the speeders in the first place. I can hear them now (say this in a high, whiny voice), "Gee, I meant ticketing everyone else that was speeding, but not me!" LOL This new tax reporting rule isn't a new tax law, it is the new speed camera set up and helping to now catch all the speeders that had been breaking the speed limit law that was there and in place all along. Do you finally get it now, or are you going to continue denying it, like someone continually saying the Earth is flat?
And as to you erroneously calling out Adam for supposedly saying something contradicting himself about whether a particular law was new or not, are you really that ignorant to not understand that the law he was referring to as not being new was the one that calls for everyone to report and pay taxes on their sales income? The quote you later referred to him supposedly contradicting himself with referred to the change in a totally different law regarding when certain independent third-parties have to start reporting sales by others to the IRS on 1099-K forms. That is the new law he was referring to, and really has nothing to do with the old, long established law about reporting and paying taxes on sales income. I can just see you having sold enough to have hit that $20K and 200 transactions threshold for getting a 1099-K form sent to you in some prior year, and then the 1099-K form sent to you getting lost in the mail so you never received it. Listening to the way you talk, I can just picture you thinking and saying to yourself that since you didn't get any 1099-K form, I don't have to report my sales that year on my tax return. And then I'd love to be there and see and hear your comments and reactions when you eventually ended up getting and opening that letter later on from the IRS telling you about how much in taxes, interest, and penalties you now owed them because you failed to report your sales income on your tax return. You somehow idiotically appear to think that unless you get a 1099-K form reporting your sales income to the IRS, you aren't required to report and pay tax on that income at all. I'd especially love to be there then when you tried to then complain and argue about it with an IRS agent, and the dressing down you'd get, and fully deserve, if this ever had happened.
"This is too rich. Point of fact. You're the one who said the law isn't new. Please scroll up and read your own words. I'm the one questioning why you're even bringing that up. If your own retort confuses you, how do you expect anyone else to follow it? Here...I'll save you the scroll:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post
This. The law ain't new; the enforcement effort is."
And speaking of saying things that contradict oneself, all your lovely comments claiming I kept pointing my finger at and just calling "collectors" tax cheats and tax evaders. For example:
"And a note on the tax cheats in our "hobby". It's funny Bob that you point the finger at collectors when you mention this (don't shoot the messenger., it was your example) and not the "cash only" and "cash discount" dealers out there. Isn't that really where you should be directing your sarcasm and ire? Why are the collectors the bad guys here?"
In another attempt to try and educate you, go back to my earlier post and re-read it, and this time pay very close attention to exactly everything I said in it. Assuming you can adequately read and comprehend things (which I'm having severe doubts about based on all the things I've seen and read from you so far), you should be able to see that not once did I ever say or refer solely to "collectors" as being tax cheats or evaders. In fact, in disputing you in an earlier post I very clearly indicated that, and I quote, "Meanwhile, the tax reporting requirement changes don't really affect any collectors buying cards at all, only if they resell them." Whenever I made reference to anyone being a possible tax cheat or evader, I clearly mentioned them generically as "people" or others, never directly or as just "collectors". And for the record, that reference to "people" also included dealers and those that just did cash transactions as well. Or didn't you understand that? I guess I should have written even more in that earlier post so as to have specifically mentioned dealers that do cash transactions and don't report those cash transactions on their tax returns can, and should, be considered as tax cheats and tax evaders as well. Silly me for not having listed every possible person or entity that could be considered a tax cheat/evader for not listing all their cards sales on their tax returns. Oh but wait, you bitched at me for writing too much as it is. So if I don't write down all these possible tax cheats/evaders, you bitch at me, and if I do go ahead and write down even more stuff to include them, you bitch at me about that. Starting to see and understand about having to dumb things down for you yet? Back on topic, and I quote, "is how by enforcing the tax laws already in place, and maybe stopping
some people from continuing to cheat on their taxes, is that then guilty of ruining or damaging our hobby". Or this other example, "The tax laws always called for
people to be reporting their profits from sales of things like sports cards/collectibles all along on their tax returns. It was just that since no independent third parties were required to report all such sales to the IRS, that many of
those people who going forward are now going to start getting these 1099-K forms (pretty much all of them really, in all likelihood) simply didn't report their sales profits on their tax returns, and are therefore literally guilty of tax evasion."
I never said this change was going to be fun, or nice. I did say it was going to be a PITA. And for your comprehension, that stands for "Pain In The Ass?, which I have no clue how you think that in any way talks about this recent reporting rule change in glowing terms:
"You might find it interesting, of the three other accountants I've spoken with over the past year, you are the only one who speaks of the change in such glowing terms."
And by the way, who gives a rat's ass what some other accountants said. Based on your somewhat obvious political leanings, I'd want to fact check the hell out of that comment to see if they even exist. And even if they do, did it ever occur to you that they might just be saying things they thought would be somewhat sympathetic to your point of view so as to possibly attract you as a new client? Or if they happen to be a friend/acquaintance, they agreed with you so as not to tick you off and ruin that relationship? Yes, I know this new reporting thing is going to suck for a lot of people, but instead of bitching and moaning about it, like it seems you only want to do, I was actually posting all along to try and warn others about it, and what they may want to plan to or have to do about it. Like make sure they do not ignore it if they end up getting a 1099-K in the future. I've also tried to make it a point to explain how the IRS will initially view someone getting one of these 1099-K forms as being in an actual business, unless they make sure to go ahead and properly report the results of their sales activities as only a collector/investor, in which case they wouldn't have to worry about the self-employments taxes. But you don't get or understand that, do you? And these accountants you supposedly talked with, they're probably mostly concerned with how they're going to get all this extra tax work done they they're going to be faced with next tax season. But don't worry, they can then think about all the extra money they can make off of it.
Or is this maybe the biggest thing of all that is causing your complaints about this new reporting rule change having hurt the "hobby", you just can't find the stuff you want on Ebay anymore:
"And what about eBay? For me, it was a huge source of my collecting over the past 20 years. However, over the last couple it's become a picked over carcass as seller after seller has gone underground and/or listed less. Has nobody else felt this difference? How is that good for the hobby?"
By any chance, the fact of many sellers leaving Ebay couldn't have possibly also been from other things like higher Ebay fees, more restrictions on sellers, sellers like PWCC being booted off, the installation of their Authentication Program, the commencement by others of "Vaults" (which has since caused Ebay to start a Vault of their own), or maybe even the start of Ebay now collecting sales tax on all Ebay transactions? But no, none of those could be factors, it us just the new tax reporting requirements rule change according to you it sounds like. Those departing Ebay sellers especially couldn't have also had anything to do with the sales tax law changes, which were allowed to take effect under a prior administration IIRC.
I could go on and on discrediting every dumb thing you've said, but why bother, it seems you never intended to listen to what anyone else had to say and try to educate you about at all. I've already posted over and over about this change in the tax reporting rule here on the forum long before this, trying to warn, help out, and answer questions of those who ask them, even when I've already been asked and responded to literally the same questions multiple times before. But I must say, I've never had someone try to throw politics into the mix, as you appear to be doing. And if so, take that crap elsewhere!!! And you are totally wrong in even daring to say I was being sarcastic before, I was not, and only trying to be totally honest with you, and actually trying to help to educate you. But you couldn't possibly understand that could you, because I didn't immediately agree with exactly what you think and wanted to hear? If you had taken the time to asks nicely, or gone back through old threads I and others having have chimed in on, you'd find that your questions and concerns about other issues surrounding this topic. like not always having complete records and data to report with, has been discussed before, along with possible solutions and further advice on what to possibly do. And I'd already in an earlier post suggested that for someone that doesn't want to pay taxes on the profits they get from their card sales, or to not have to bother reporting any sales on their tax returns at all, there are various other ways and venues they can use and take advantage of to get around that by not having anything reported to the IRS regarding what they are doing. But anyone that elects to do that is technically a tax cheat or tax evader, or whatever you want to call them. And if someone doesn't like being called or thought of like that, tough $hit, don't cheat on your taxes then.