|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: IRS to tax employer cell/smart phones? started by: Malcolm Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 14 2009,09:28
< Come the fuck on, don't you fuckers have something better to do >?QUOTE The debate stems from a 1989 law that requires workers who use company cellphones for personal calls to count the value of those calls as income and pay federal income taxes for the minutes used. Employees are supposed to keep detailed records of their calls. Now that sending e-mails on mobile devices is more prevalent, data charges could also be subject to scrutiny. ... Under several proposals put forth this week, the IRS would more strictly enforce an existing law that classifies company-issued cellphones as a taxable benefit -- an idea decried by employers and wireless companies who argue that mobile phones are now essential tools in the workplace that shouldn't be considered income. Yep. Nothing spurs the economy like MORE TAXES. Cos otherwise owners might use that cash to, hell, I dunno, put it back into their biz, making it grow bigger. Got to stop that obviously. If the companies get too big, they approach the magic gov't bailout amount. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2009,13:08
Trust me... this government is going to go after every last dollar in your pocket that they can. This does not shock me.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 14 2009,15:09
With the constant increase in entitlement programs (old ones like Social Security, and new ones like the Medicare drug benefit passed under the Bush administration), I was reading last night that in a couple of years it will take a 50% tax increase (across the board) to balance the budget.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Jun. 14 2009,20:43
(Malcolm @ Jun. 14 2009,12:28) QUOTE < Come the fuck on, don't you fuckers have something better to do >? QUOTE The debate stems from a 1989 law that requires workers who use company cellphones for personal calls to count the value of those calls as income and pay federal income taxes for the minutes used. Employees are supposed to keep detailed records of their calls. Now that sending e-mails on mobile devices is more prevalent, data charges could also be subject to scrutiny. ... Under several proposals put forth this week, the IRS would more strictly enforce an existing law that classifies company-issued cellphones as a taxable benefit -- an idea decried by employers and wireless companies who argue that mobile phones are now essential tools in the workplace that shouldn't be considered income. Yep. Nothing spurs the economy like MORE TAXES. Cos otherwise owners might use that cash to, hell, I dunno, put it back into their biz, making it grow bigger. Got to stop that obviously. If the companies get too big, they approach the magic gov't bailout amount. Tax Reform act of 1987. Would not call that new. That was Ronald Reagan's tax simplification that was supposed to put me out of work. I know some one does not like it when Isay so but lol. lol. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 14 2009,20:47
Why do corporations get taxed, when it is consumers that pay those taxes, and there is already sales tax everywhere?
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 14 2009,21:45
(GORDON @ Jun. 14 2009,22:47) QUOTE Why do corporations get taxed, when it is consumers that pay those taxes, and there is already sales tax everywhere? Because corporations are faceless, evil entities that secretly maintain a super-mega-global monopoly designed to fuck consumers. & since certain corporations are immortal now, there's no risk of them going under. The gov't will pay their taxes for them. Posted by Mommy Dearest on Jun. 15 2009,20:25
(GORDON @ Jun. 14 2009,23:47) QUOTE Why do corporations get taxed, when it is consumers that pay those taxes, and there is already sales tax everywhere? circle of life Posted by GORDON on Jun. 15 2009,20:31
Why do military people pay federal tax when their pay is already federal taxes?
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 16 2009,05:45
QUOTE Why do military people pay federal tax when their pay is already federal taxes? That's a question I asked a lot when I was in the service. Military pay in the civilian world would be below the poverty level, so why screw them over even further by taxing that money? I was thinking about this some more and I'd love someone to explain how a company paid cell phone is a benefit that should be taxed. How does it differ from a landline phone in your office? How does it differ from a company car? A uniform? Company provided office space? Company provided office supplies like pens, paper, staples, etc.? Company provided internet access? Are we going to be taxed for all that too? Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 16 2009,06:48
The basic premise is that anything your company provides you that has a personal benefit is taxable as income. I'm sure Mommy D can expound further.If you read the excerpt above, it specifically mentions the taxable portion being personal use on a company-provided asset. Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 16 2009,07:27
My question would be: who's responsible for records? If no records are maintained, does the IRS tax you for 100% of the phone?
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Jun. 16 2009,07:58
(TPRJones @ Jun. 16 2009,10:27) QUOTE My question would be: who's responsible for records? If no records are maintained, does the IRS tax you for 100% of the phone? IRS requires the employee to submit personal use records for automobiles, and also has a formula if it is needed. Cell phones can be determined by the call records. As I said before these things are not new. They have been required since 1986 TRA. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 16 2009,08:16
Why is it that all of the money I make is taxed, then if I die and leave it to my son it is taxed, then if he spends it it is taxed?Anyone think this country has a tax problem? Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 16 2009,08:17
Yes, but can someone just say "0%" and be believed? If they have no proof of 0% personal use, then what is the default position of the IRS?
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 16 2009,08:41
What about shared cell phones? You know the ones that get passed around from person to person depending on who is on call? How the hell do you track who made personal call son that thing and when? How does the government prove a call was for personal reasons? Example: IRS: Mr. Smith, your records show you calling your home during the work day from your cell phone on June 4th of last year. We need to tax you for that. Mr. Smith: I was calling the house to ask my wife if I had left a flash drive sitting in my home office. That was completely work related. We spoke about nothing else. So you can't tax me for that. They can't prove a single call is personal unless they have transcripts of the calls too. And my argument about taxing us for company provided pens, paper, internet access, laptops, PCs, etc. is valid if this ignorant shit gets pushed. QUOTE Why is it that all of the money I make is taxed, then if I die and leave it to my son it is taxed, then if he spends it it is taxed? I've always wondered how that shit is even legal. Whatever happened to money not being taxed twice? Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 16 2009,08:54
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2009,11:41) QUOTE I've always wondered how that shit is even legal. Whatever happened to money not being taxed twice? There's no law about that. Estate taxes have been around since the Civil War, iirc. And corporate dividends (which are profits, which are thus already taxed) are double-taxed as well. But, yeah, I agree that neither estates nor dividends should be double-taxed. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 16 2009,08:54
You buy a car, there is sales tax. You are taxed when you register for tags to make owning it legal, even if it never leaves your garage, ever. You buy fuel for it, you get taxed. You get taxed for the roads on which to drive it whether you own a car or not.I wonder if people would be shocked at how much of their money actually goes to taxes, and how little goes into the actual economy. Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 16 2009,08:56
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2009,11:41) QUOTE And my argument about taxing us for company provided pens, paper, internet access, laptops, PCs, etc. is valid if this ignorant shit gets pushed. QUOTE The debate stems from a 1989 law that requires workers who use company cellphones for personal calls to count the value of those calls as income and pay federal income taxes for the minutes used. Employees are supposed to keep detailed records of their calls. Now that sending e-mails on mobile devices is more prevalent, data charges could also be subject to scrutiny. The law was passed at a time when cellphones were considered a luxury, such as a corporate car or jet, and only used by the wealthiest professionals. Brick-sized phones typically cost $2,000 and $3 per minute. But BlackBerrys, iPhones, PDAs, cellphones and laptops are now common fixtures for workers, and few companies have enforced the tedious record-keeping rule. Is the legal counter-argument. Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 16 2009,12:06
Each day I hope we are finally getting closer to the Second American Revolution.No taxation without rectification! Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2009,12:25
(TPRJones @ Jun. 16 2009,14:06) QUOTE Each day I hope we are finally getting closer to the Second American Revolution. No taxation without rectification! If the British army had possessed tactical nukes, then the founding fathers might've thought twice before throwing a tea party. "Revolution" means something quite different today than 200+ years ago. Posted by Mommy Dearest on Jun. 17 2009,06:14
(Leisher @ Jun. 16 2009,11:41) QUOTE What about shared cell phones? You know the ones that get passed around from person to person depending on who is on call? How the hell do you track who made personal call son that thing and when? How does the government prove a call was for personal reasons? Example: IRS: Mr. Smith, your records show you calling your home during the work day from your cell phone on June 4th of last year. We need to tax you for that. Mr. Smith: I was calling the house to ask my wife if I had left a flash drive sitting in my home office. That was completely work related. We spoke about nothing else. So you can't tax me for that. They can't prove a single call is personal unless they have transcripts of the calls too. And my argument about taxing us for company provided pens, paper, internet access, laptops, PCs, etc. is valid if this ignorant shit gets pushed. QUOTE Why is it that all of the money I make is taxed, then if I die and leave it to my son it is taxed, then if he spends it it is taxed? I've always wondered how that shit is even legal. Whatever happened to money not being taxed twice? It is going to get even worse real soon. All of the tax breaks that were put into effect in 1999/2000 are scheduled to expire in 2011. We go from 0 estate tax no matter how large the estate back to taxing every estate over approx. $600,000.00. Don't you wonder what idiot thought that one up? Posted by GORDON on Jun. 17 2009,06:38
If the Democratic congress lets it expire, then it is their fault.Every law should have a sunset clause. Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 17 2009,07:13
(GORDON @ Jun. 17 2009,08:38) QUOTE If the Democratic congress lets it expire, then it is their fault. Every law should have a sunset clause. Yeah, & ideally, every law should be written by those w\ expertise on the subject matter in question. You can't always get what you want. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 17 2009,07:45
Which is why a sunset clause makes so much sense.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 17 2009,08:55
(GORDON @ Jun. 17 2009,08:38) QUOTE Every law should have a sunset clause. Except the law about every law having a sunset clause. That one can stay. Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 17 2009,11:40
QUOTE The Obama administration on Tuesday said it will back repealing a hard-to-enforce tax on personal use of work cellphones, appeasing the business community, phone makers and users.
A 1989 law requires companies seeking to deduct worker cellphones as an expense to track personal use with painstaking documentation of minutes. The government, in a notice last week sought public comment on making compliance easier, but now says the law should be scrapped altogether. Treasury "Secretary (Timothy) Geithner and I ask that Congress act to make clear that there will be no tax consequence to employers or employees for personal use of work-related devices such as cellphones provided by employers," Douglas Shulman, the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner, said in a statement. "The passage of time, advances in technology, and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete," the statement added. Under current law, workers are required to pay tax on personal use of a work cellphone as a fringe benefit. The U.S. House of Representatives last year passed a repeal of the law, and the Senate got 60 sponsors for its bid. The measures, which have bipartisan backing, have been reintroduced again this year. The Chamber of Commerce and cellphone trade group wrote key lawmakers earlier this month, arguing for repeal. Posted by Mommy Dearest on Jun. 17 2009,20:13
(TheCatt @ Jun. 17 2009,14:40) QUOTE QUOTE The Obama administration on Tuesday said it will back repealing a hard-to-enforce tax on personal use of work cellphones, appeasing the business community, phone makers and users. A 1989 law requires companies seeking to deduct worker cellphones as an expense to track personal use with painstaking documentation of minutes. The government, in a notice last week sought public comment on making compliance easier, but now says the law should be scrapped altogether. Treasury "Secretary (Timothy) Geithner and I ask that Congress act to make clear that there will be no tax consequence to employers or employees for personal use of work-related devices such as cellphones provided by employers," Douglas Shulman, the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner, said in a statement. "The passage of time, advances in technology, and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete," the statement added. Under current law, workers are required to pay tax on personal use of a work cellphone as a fringe benefit. The U.S. House of Representatives last year passed a repeal of the law, and the Senate got 60 sponsors for its bid. The measures, which have bipartisan backing, have been reintroduced again this year. The Chamber of Commerce and cellphone trade group wrote key lawmakers earlier this month, arguing for repeal. I really do believe it was tra 1986 however let me explain a little of the original argument. Congress created a group of items called "listed property". Property on this list were items that were easily assesable(sic) for personal use. Therefore anything on this list required special record keeping to claim as deductions as well as special rules for depreciation and recovery of deductions if the items were sold. Among these items were: Vehicles, cell phones, and video cameras. Why has it taken over 20 years for this law to get out in the open and cause controversy? Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 17 2009,22:04
QUOTE Why has it taken over 20 years for this law to get out in the open and cause controversy? Cos back in '86, there were about five cell phones & the total taxes would be about $20. Posted by Mommy Dearest on Jun. 18 2009,06:56
The same tra made you include the difference between what your lease payment was for a luxury car and what the IRS figured was a "standard car" At that time they thought a "standard car" was about $16500.00. This number was not indexed for inflation and still remains about the same. Go figure.
|