Here's your 1099 reporting issue update
DrBuster
Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭✭✭
link a roo
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle hate an onerous tax-reporting requirement in the health care reform law.
They just have a funny way of showing it.
Senate Democrats voted down a Republican plan to repeal the provision Tuesday — the same day that Senate Republicans voted down a Democratic plan to repeal the measure.
Now Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee are considering a new push to repeal the provision, and a floor vote could come as soon as next week. But their plan, like all of the others, comes with strings attached that will make it virtually impossible for the other party to sign on.
The provision in question requires any business that spends more than $600 with a particular vendor to report the expenditure on a 1099 tax form. Lawmakers from both parties say that it’s too onerous and would bury businesses — particularly small ones — in a sea of unnecessary paperwork.
But no one has come up with a way to cover the $17 billion cost of repealing the provision — or at least not way that doesn’t turn off too many lawmakers on the other side of the aisle.
The new Democratic plan would offset the $17 billion loss by taxing carried interest, a move Republicans and at least some moderate Democrats are likely to oppose. “They want to put Republicans in the corner and make carried interest a pay-for,” said an aide to a moderate Democrat.
Another proposal under consideration is to pay for it by changing Grantor Retained Annuity Trust inheritance rules. Moderate Democrats worry that leadership won’t go for it because Republicans might actually support it; some Democrats are reluctant to let through any legislation that would let Republicans claim success in repealing part of health care reform.
The new House bill would be brought up under regular rules, according to aides familiar with it. In July, the House brought up a similar amendment, proposed by Rep. Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.), under suspension. Republicans opposed it because of its new taxes, and it didn’t generate the two-thirds support that was required.
Republicans have proposed paying for the bill by removing money from the health law’s prevention fund and altering the tax subsidies to buy insurance coverage — proposals Democrats have quickly rejected. Prior Democratic plans have involved taxing oil companies and closing tax loopholes, and Republicans have declined to sign on.
0
Comments
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I knew it would happen.
These guys are already counting the anticpated $17 BILL that this bill is going to bring in over the next 10 yrs...lol. But have they also anticipated the negative costs over the next 10 yrs? I'm sure there are many. In fact I'd be surprised if the unseen effects don't outweigh the revenues. In reality this bill is a pittance on the revenue side. The govt spends money at about 100,000X faster per day than this bill is expected to brings. OK, so another 100,000 new bills of this size will get us to austerity. At 273 new bills each day we can get there in one year.
It's all about tracking our money and knowing where it goes. The supposed tax revenues while not zero, are a mere pittance.
roadrunner
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>Thanks for the update.
These guys are already counting the anticpated $17 BILL that this bill is going to bring in over the next 10 yrs...lol. But have they also anticipated the negative costs over the next 10 yrs? I'm sure there are many. In fact I'd be surprised if the unseen effects don't outweigh the revenues. In reality this bill is a pittance on the revenue side. The govt spends money at about 100,000X faster per day than this bill is expected to brings. OK, so another 100,000 new bills of this size will get us to austerity. At 273 new bills each day we can get there in one year.
It's all about tracking our money and knowing where it goes. The supposed tax revenues while not zero, are a mere pittance.
roadrunner >>
As always you are insightful - I too agree that the primary purpose is for the guv-mint to be able to take a little deeper and longer look into our finances.
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks for the update.
These guys are already counting the anticpated $17 BILL that this bill is going to bring in over the next 10 yrs...lol. But have they also anticipated the negative costs over the next 10 yrs? I'm sure there are many. In fact I'd be surprised if the unseen effects don't outweigh the revenues. In reality this bill is a pittance on the revenue side. The govt spends money at about 100,000X faster per day than this bill is expected to brings. OK, so another 100,000 new bills of this size will get us to austerity. At 273 new bills each day we can get there in one year.
It's all about tracking our money and knowing where it goes. The supposed tax revenues while not zero, are a mere pittance.
roadrunner >>
As always you are insightful - I too agree that the primary purpose is for the guv-mint to be able to take a little deeper and longer look into our finances. >>
Also the possiblity that IRS is trying to use the buyer to find out which sellers are not reporting and paying required taxes. The only finances the guv-mint will learn about from the 1099 change are finances that are already required to be reported: Sales. I don't agree with them depending on buyers to report sales. The IRS should do its job and identify and prosecute sellers who are not paying their required taxes. Lord knows, we give them enough tax dollars to get the job done.
This bill is not bringing in any "new" taxes. It's just an effort to collect existing taxes that are not being reported by sellers.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks for the update.
These guys are already counting the anticpated $17 BILL that this bill is going to bring in over the next 10 yrs...lol. But have they also anticipated the negative costs over the next 10 yrs? I'm sure there are many. In fact I'd be surprised if the unseen effects don't outweigh the revenues. In reality this bill is a pittance on the revenue side. The govt spends money at about 100,000X faster per day than this bill is expected to brings. OK, so another 100,000 new bills of this size will get us to austerity. At 273 new bills each day we can get there in one year.
It's all about tracking our money and knowing where it goes. The supposed tax revenues while not zero, are a mere pittance.
roadrunner >>
As always you are insightful - I too agree that the primary purpose is for the guv-mint to be able to take a little deeper and longer look into our finances. >>
Also the possiblity that IRS is trying to use the buyer to find out which sellers are not reporting and paying required taxes. The only finances the guv-mint will learn about from the 1099 change are finances that are already required to be reported: Sales. I don't agree with them depending on buyers to report sales. The IRS should do its job and identify and prosecute sellers who are not paying their required taxes. >>
I concur with you - that is the primary result of this bill - it is unfortunate that the "unintended consequence" of this bill will affect many of us who are just trying to fly under the radar.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks for the update.
These guys are already counting the anticpated $17 BILL that this bill is going to bring in over the next 10 yrs...lol. But have they also anticipated the negative costs over the next 10 yrs? I'm sure there are many. In fact I'd be surprised if the unseen effects don't outweigh the revenues. In reality this bill is a pittance on the revenue side. The govt spends money at about 100,000X faster per day than this bill is expected to brings. OK, so another 100,000 new bills of this size will get us to austerity. At 273 new bills each day we can get there in one year.
It's all about tracking our money and knowing where it goes. The supposed tax revenues while not zero, are a mere pittance.
roadrunner >>
As always you are insightful - I too agree that the primary purpose is for the guv-mint to be able to take a little deeper and longer look into our finances. >>
Also the possiblity that IRS is trying to use the buyer to find out which sellers are not reporting and paying required taxes. The only finances the guv-mint will learn about from the 1099 change are finances that are already required to be reported: Sales. I don't agree with them depending on buyers to report sales. The IRS should do its job and identify and prosecute sellers who are not paying their required taxes. >>
I concur with you - that is the primary result of this bill - it is unfortunate that the "unintended consequence" of this bill will affect many of us who are just trying to fly under the radar. >>
If flying under the radar means not paying required taxes on sales, then such people are the reason they saw fit to make buyers such as myself report a seller's income for them on a "buyer's" 1099. To all the "under the radar" sellers out there: Thanks a lot, I don't need the extra paperwork.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey