![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
jerseycajun.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSome of the following may not be news for those who have come across IRS publication 525 regarding taxable income, but to those who have not, I assure you I am not making the following up.
In looking for a particular form of income and where to put it in the tax form, I came across some of these other forms of taxable income:
"Illegal Activities Income from illegal activities such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1080, line 21 or on Schedule C...."
On this one, I can almost see a logic at work, albeit a very cynical one. Since police power rests with the states to prosecute drug laws, use the Capone method and get 'em at the federal level on tax evasion. Not sure how often it has or hasn't been used by the federal level to achieve prosecutions, but I can't think of any other reason to put such a ridiculous sounding provision in the tax code. Note, none of this should be interpreted to imply that I agree with any of these end-run shenanigans, but at least a certain logic can be seen.
Amongst the other taxable items:
Kickbacks, and Bribes (presumably for new and confused Congressmen unfamiliar about how these should be filed). The section also details how "found objects" qualify as income, despite the fact that it is for all intents and purposes, an un-enforceable tax. No money changes hands, and there is no record for if and when you find an object of value.
Now, I have been known to be fairly cynical in my attitudes to how the government operates, but when one sees these things printed in black and white, can there really be any wonder why I and others have deep seated skepticism (aside and apart from the more logical arguments one can make and which have been often made) when a new federal program like the recent health care initiative is touted as being 'deficit neutral'? How many of you were previously aware of these provisions? Can anyone here attempt to explain or even defend the inclusion of some of these provisions?
In looking for a particular form of income and where to put it in the tax form, I came across some of these other forms of taxable income:
"Illegal Activities Income from illegal activities such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1080, line 21 or on Schedule C...."
On this one, I can almost see a logic at work, albeit a very cynical one. Since police power rests with the states to prosecute drug laws, use the Capone method and get 'em at the federal level on tax evasion. Not sure how often it has or hasn't been used by the federal level to achieve prosecutions, but I can't think of any other reason to put such a ridiculous sounding provision in the tax code. Note, none of this should be interpreted to imply that I agree with any of these end-run shenanigans, but at least a certain logic can be seen.
Amongst the other taxable items:
Kickbacks, and Bribes (presumably for new and confused Congressmen unfamiliar about how these should be filed). The section also details how "found objects" qualify as income, despite the fact that it is for all intents and purposes, an un-enforceable tax. No money changes hands, and there is no record for if and when you find an object of value.
Now, I have been known to be fairly cynical in my attitudes to how the government operates, but when one sees these things printed in black and white, can there really be any wonder why I and others have deep seated skepticism (aside and apart from the more logical arguments one can make and which have been often made) when a new federal program like the recent health care initiative is touted as being 'deficit neutral'? How many of you were previously aware of these provisions? Can anyone here attempt to explain or even defend the inclusion of some of these provisions?
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:17 (UTC)Never thought I'd have something in common with Wesley Snipes.
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:10 (UTC)Everyone in the USA is a criminal. The only thing is most of us don't know what crime we're guilty of yet.
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 07:17 (UTC)Chuck Norris can't break the law. He *is* he law. fact (http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/)
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 07:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:43 (UTC)That's nice that you find it silly. But that isn't the point. This isn't about the endless, millions upon millions of differing opinions, ideas and morals. This is about cobbling together some kind of make-shift system by which people can find food and shelter.
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 05:00 (UTC)Yes, we get it, you don't like the government. You ain't sposed to.
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 05:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 21:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:27 (UTC)The "found object" provision is for those people who just happen to "find" a suitcase full of 100s, for example. AFAIK a windfall has always been taxable (like an inheritance) and they just wanted to make it very clear it includes the wayward suitcase full of cash as well as an inheritance.
What I find objectionable is that this is used as a pretext for seizing cash and telling people they have to prove they came by it via legal means. (Yes, this means you Mr. Florida State trooper.)
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 04:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 05:18 (UTC)If you don't object to income tax, you can hardly object to inheritance taxation. At least with income you actually worked for and can claim to have a moral right to it.
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 13:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 14:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 18:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 05:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 09:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 13:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 13:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 05:58 (UTC)Yeah but should the system of law really hinge on stacking time for redundant offense after redundant offense until a fucking traffic violation is potentially a life sentence just so the judiciary can do an end-run around double jeopardy and decide who gets off light and who gets sealed up in a box forever based on their profound insights into the soul of man?
I mean I understand that's a very popular perspective among law enforcement in particular, and it's easy to see why, makes their job a whole lot easier if they can decide who are the bad guys deep down just by looking at 'em and then punish them rather than having to gather evidence to prosecute serious offenses. But it kinda obviates the whole point of having, like, laws and fair trials and shit, rather than just dragging people in front of the King to decide arbitrarily who should be treated with mercy and who gets sent to the gallows based on who they're buddies with or how good a sob story they can tell. It's a cheap way to get around sentencing guidelines and double jeopardy, nothing more, nothing less.
Forfeiture and all that shit are a whole other level of fucked.
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 06:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 09:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 12:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 16:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 12:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 13:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 09:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 16:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 19:50 (UTC)"We can't give it out on our own" is NOT the same as "this information is confidential".
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 11:21 (UTC)Now all we need is a deduction (or, better, a credit) for bribes paid.
(no subject)
Date: 16/4/10 23:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/4/10 00:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 12:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 14:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/4/10 16:40 (UTC)Wrong. The federal government can enforce drug laws. See Gonzales v. Raich.
Overall, though, I believe this is actually a result of international accounting rules. I'm trying to remember what the category was called, but basically there's this system called the Balance of Payments sheet. It's like a national accounting sheet. Anyway, one of the categories is basically "illegal activity, bribes, black market, etc." only phrased more nicely. Many international borrowers and accounting protocols require you to make some attempt to determine the amount of these variances, at least in name. And yeah, they tack it on to the crimes when you get arrested, too. Or, they can. Just like every drug indictment includes an indictment for violations of federal communication laws, because they assume that you used a phone at some point, and that's illegal.