Taxes
02-03-2019 | 10:03 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Ironically, income is and has been defined for a very long time but, for Federal Tax purposes, the IRS and tax lawyers always turn to the touchstone case Commr. v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), which is probably the most important case in American tax law in that it defined "income" quite broadly. Glenshaw Glass established that income is:
"Any undeniable accession to wealth,
which is clearly realized by the taxpayer, over which the taxpayer has complete dominion."
If you paint a farmer's barn and the farmer pays you for that service with meat from half a cow, the value of the meat is income.
The issue(s) revolve(s) around what part and how much of that income is either exempt or deductible under the Federal Tax code. That's where the CPAs and tax lawyers make their $$$. 😁
"Any undeniable accession to wealth,
which is clearly realized by the taxpayer, over which the taxpayer has complete dominion."
If you paint a farmer's barn and the farmer pays you for that service with meat from half a cow, the value of the meat is income.
The issue(s) revolve(s) around what part and how much of that income is either exempt or deductible under the Federal Tax code. That's where the CPAs and tax lawyers make their $$$. 😁
Denny
02-03-2019 | 10:58 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,361
Likes: 58
Look at it this way. The farmer got his barn painted and, instead of paying cash to the painter, he paid with meat which the painter agreed was equal to the value of his services. Would you pay income tax on someone painting your house? I'm thinking no but you would pay income tax on money paid to you for performing a service. Now, if the farmer tilled the painter's back lot in exchange for the painter painting the farmer's barn, the mutual income issue becomes a player.
02-03-2019 | 11:28 AM
#54
Line Holder
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 481
Likes: 5
02-03-2019 | 04:10 PM
#56
Banned
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,208
Likes: 6
Because that's how they buy votes.
The wealthy pay to get the loopholes in, because if they didn't, then their wealth would be expatriated pretty quickly.
And making exemptions for the poor, elderly, disabled, etc helps them win elections. Closing those loopholes would be politically untenable.
02-03-2019 | 04:16 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Well.....you've gone straight to a nuance of barter. 😁
Look at it this way. The farmer got his barn painted and, instead of paying cash to the painter, he paid with meat which the painter agreed was equal to the value of his services. Would you pay income tax on someone painting your house? I'm thinking no but you would pay income tax on money paid to you for performing a service. Now, if the farmer tilled the painter's back lot in exchange for the painter painting the farmer's barn, the mutual income issue becomes a player.
Look at it this way. The farmer got his barn painted and, instead of paying cash to the painter, he paid with meat which the painter agreed was equal to the value of his services. Would you pay income tax on someone painting your house? I'm thinking no but you would pay income tax on money paid to you for performing a service. Now, if the farmer tilled the painter's back lot in exchange for the painter painting the farmer's barn, the mutual income issue becomes a player.
For the sake of argument ('cause I like a good argument!) What's the difference between the farmer tilling the painters back 40 and giving him the cow? I mean, that farmer raised that cow from a calf and has invested time and energy into it. That cow's probably worth a lot!!!Denny
02-03-2019 | 05:30 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,361
Likes: 58
For the sake of argument ('cause I like a good argument!) What's the difference between the farmer tilling the painters back 40 and giving him the cow? I mean, that farmer raised that cow from a calf and has invested time and energy into it. That cow's probably worth a lot!!!Denny
By trading the meat away, the farmer has no accession to wealth because, at the end, it's a zero sum game for him. He has less in his meat locker now in exchange for a painted barn so his overall wealth remains unchanged. If the farmer tills the painter's back 40, his meat locker remains unchanged - he has not given up anything (other than his time and effort) but his efforts got him a painted barn which is the exchange of a service for a service and therefore it becomes income valued at the fair market value of the service received.
Clear as mud?
If only the Super Bowl was as "exciting" as a Sunday evening tax discussion. 😁
02-03-2019 | 08:36 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,472
Likes: 639
From: NYC 7ERA
Since we can't write off per diem shortage anymore, I wonder if I'm C2019 we could ask for something truly industry leading.
Pay us the actual Govt MI&E rate for our layover cities, with a contractual floor of not less than $3/hr domestic and $3.50 international.
When the only layover cities you see on a regular basis ate SFO, SAN, SEA and LAX, this national average Per Diem don't come close to covering meals unless you eat at Taco Bell.
Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk
Pay us the actual Govt MI&E rate for our layover cities, with a contractual floor of not less than $3/hr domestic and $3.50 international.
When the only layover cities you see on a regular basis ate SFO, SAN, SEA and LAX, this national average Per Diem don't come close to covering meals unless you eat at Taco Bell.
Sent from my 2PYB2 using Tapatalk
02-03-2019 | 08:54 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Are we talking Angus, Longhorn, Waygu or Kobe? 😁
By trading the meat away, the farmer has no accession to wealth because, at the end, it's a zero sum game for him. He has less in his meat locker now in exchange for a painted barn so his overall wealth remains unchanged. If the farmer tills the painter's back 40, his meat locker remains unchanged - he has not given up anything (other than his time and effort) but his efforts got him a painted barn which is the exchange of a service for a service and therefore it becomes income valued at the fair market value of the service received.
Clear as mud?
If only the Super Bowl was as "exciting" as a Sunday evening tax discussion. 😁
By trading the meat away, the farmer has no accession to wealth because, at the end, it's a zero sum game for him. He has less in his meat locker now in exchange for a painted barn so his overall wealth remains unchanged. If the farmer tills the painter's back 40, his meat locker remains unchanged - he has not given up anything (other than his time and effort) but his efforts got him a painted barn which is the exchange of a service for a service and therefore it becomes income valued at the fair market value of the service received.
Clear as mud?
If only the Super Bowl was as "exciting" as a Sunday evening tax discussion. 😁
You win! My mad cow and old age have decimated my legal mind!
I was in a couple of Super Bowl pools. I'll get my money back plus enough to have lunch at my favorite Bar and Grill. (Owned by a very good friend of mine!)
Denny
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wannabepilot
Hangar Talk
0
04-25-2008 09:19 PM
