Myers Depot Metal Detectors

"Warning"Change in 2022. tax laws

Freebirdtim, check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSv9_pH10e0 minute mark 12 52 on how to deduct expenses that you don't have a receipt for, handy tip...
I'm a reseller too and always try to get any deduction I can!

FreeBirdTim said:
Yup, I take a beating on taxes because I don't have receipts for 90% of the items I sell on eBay. I buy a ton of stuff at yard and estates sales, as well as buying collections on Craigslist. No one is willing to give me a receipt for any of those purchases.

I also lose on all the CDs and DVDs I sell. I paid $12 to $20 each for them, but only get $5 or less for them on eBay. Who the heck saved receipts for those items? Bottom line, I'm paying way more than my fair share in taxes.
Click to expand...
 
Tom_in_CA said:
And if you think about it, these statements are LOADED with default implicit starting premises.

For example you saying "....everyone knows they're guilty....". Ok, so what you're saying then is : We don't need prosecutions OR defense. Because, gee, "we" (who is the "we" praytell ?) already know they're guilty.

Well gee, if it's that simple, how silly of us all ! This ambiguous "we" of yours can just simply whisk them off to jail. No trial, no nothing. Because, gee, after all, we already know. Eh ? :?:

You should study the plot of the screenplay "12 Angry Men". Those jurors already *knew* the 18 yr. old punk was guilty. And were anxious for the court proceedings to be over. So that they could end their jury duty obligation and get back home. After all, it was *obvious* the punk was guilty. So the 12 jurors paid no attention to the lawyers bickering. And waited anxiously for it to be over, so they could vote "guilty".

Are you familiar with how the screenplay ended ? :cool3:
Click to expand...

I'm actually referring to those cases where they have recorded video of the crime (everyone knows), but because their lawyer found a reason for the evidence to be inadmissible, the guilty goes free to commit more crimes.

How many times just in the last week have we seen cases on the news of criminals getting off, thank you Mr. lawyer, and going out to commit more crime? They blame the judges, but they forget their is a lawyer in there as well. The girl that was stabbed to death just last week was because a known criminal was released because his last crime was reduced. I'm sure the lawyer is patting himself on the back. What a clever guy.
 
Detector said:
I know I shouldn't paint all lawyers with the same brush, but I'm just saying in my case I have yet to see one with morals. I know they say Justice is meant to be blind, but when you live in a "Good-ol-Boys" city, it's hard not to be biased.

I've always asked myself what kind of person takes a job where their main objective is to try and find a loophole, or a mistake made to get a guilty person off? I mean knowing that your client has killed someone, but you're able to find a loophole that gets video evidence thrown out, and the guilty go free and you call yourself clever, what kind of person does that?

A criminal goes free because of a technicality found by the lawyer, even though everyone knows they are guilty, and they commit another crime and blame the legal system and not the lawyer who got them freed. Easy to blame a system that can never be fault-free when there are people so willing to look in every crevice for a reason to set the guilty free. Their job should be to make sure their client gets a fair trial, not look for loopholes to get the guilty freed.
Click to expand...

What you're suggesting is almost a complete 180 from our Constitution and the centuries of case law that discuss due process rights.

We have an adversarial justice system. Yes, it has its flaws, but it's based on the idea that each side will get the best representation possible if each side tries to win its case, regardless of "fairness."

Of course, this isn't entirely true, and there are ethical and legal rules that both sides must abide by to make it less adversarial.

As for your example, you know DAs are just as ruthless, right? Your DA concerning that citation didn't care about justice or fairness. But if you had a lawyer, you would have had someone that could counter your DA's...let's just call it "zealous" approach to enforcing the law. At least, that's the theory.

From first hand experience, I too have my "suggestions" for how our criminal and civil justice system should be changed. But my suggestions would require Constitutional Amendments. Yeah, that ain't happenin'...
 
mh9162013 said:
What you're suggesting is almost a complete 180 from our Constitution and the centuries of case law that discuss due process rights.

We have an adversarial justice system. Yes, it has its flaws, but it's based on the idea that each side will get the best representation possible if each side tries to win its case, regardless of "fairness."

Of course, this isn't entirely true, and there are ethical and legal rules that both sides must abide by to make it less adversarial.

As for your example, you know DAs are just as ruthless, right? Your DA concerning that citation didn't care about justice or fairness. But if you had a lawyer, you would have had someone that could counter yoru DA's...let's just call it "zealous" approach to enforcing the law. At least, that's the theory.
Click to expand...

I understand that. What I'm talking about is called common sense. If they have a video of the person killing another, but it can't be used because it was filmed wrong, and the guilty go free is just stupid.
 
Detector said:
I understand that. What I'm talking about is called common sense. If they have a video of the person killing another, but it can't be used because it was filmed wrong, and the guilty go free is just stupid.
Click to expand...

What's youre describing is to keep dishonest police officers in check. Too often DAs and "officers of the law" would use illegal tactics to obtain evidence for a conviction. Ok, so you think the ends justifies the means. In a perfect world, I would agree.

Maybe the first time a cop violates the 4th Amendment to get otherwise unknown evidence to put a bad person behind bars. If it only worked that way, there would be no 4th Amendment. But the power to search and seize without probable cause (that a judge decides, not a DA or police officer) is too easily abused. Hence, we have this "wall" in place to deter cops and DAs from obtaining and/or using illegally obtained evidence.
 
mh9162013 said:
What's youre describing is to keep dishonest police officers in check. Too often DAs and "officers of the law" would use illegal tactics to obtain evidence for a conviction. Ok, so you think the ends justifies the means. In a perfect world, I would agree.

Maybe the first time a cop violates the 4th Amendment to get otherwise unknown evidence to put a bad person behind bars. If it only worked that way, there would be no 4th Amendment. But the power to search and seize without probable cause (that a judge decides, not a DA or police officer) is too easily abused. Hence, we have this "wall" in place to deter cops and DAs from obtaining and/or using illegally obtained evidence.
Click to expand...

It is easily abused because we allow the "good-ol-boy" systems to exist.

How about the guy who ran over and killed all those people? He ran over his girlfriend with the same vehicle just the week before and broke her leg, but was released on a reduced crime so he could go out and kill people. They the public all act so surprisedly. Oh my, how did that guy get out so he could kill all those innocent paraders? DUH!!!
 
Detector said:
It is easily abused because we allow the "good-ol-boy" systems to exist.

How about the guy who ran over and killed all those people? He ran over his girlfriend with the same vehicle just the week before and broke her leg, but was released on a reduced crime so he could go out and kill people. They the public all act so surprisedly. Oh my, how did that guy get out so he could kill all those innocent paraders? DUH!!!
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of your example, but I'll run with it: no system is perfect. There's an attempt to balance the rights of the accused (b/c some of them are innocent or there are mitigating factors) with the rights of the victims or those harmed by the alleged crime (b/c they deserve justice).

You want fewer guilty people on the street? You're gonna get more innocent people in jail. It's like discrimination with metal detecting: you want to find more gold? You gotta fine more pull tabs. If you want fewer pull tabs, you're gonna miss out on some gold. Pick your poison.
 
Detector said:
...., but it can't be used because it was filmed wrong, ....
Click to expand...

Then if it's true that it was "filmed wrong", then presto : It was "filmed wrong".

There are types of evidence that are inadmissible. So that innocent people don't get put behind bars. So you see, there's the ying and the yang of the admissible evidence. You WANT those standards, so that if you're innocent, that "wrong filming" doesn't likewise put you behind bars, when you're innocent.

The moment you say "that evidence should have been admitted" (so that a guilty person rightfully goes to jail), is the minute that the same standard can put an innocent person behind bars.

There simply HAS to be legal precedents (I'm sure you would agree) to what is allowed as evidence. It can't be a free-for-all.
 
Detector said:
.... He ran over his girlfriend with the same vehicle just the week before and broke her leg, but was released on a reduced crime so he could go out and kill people. They the public all act so surprisedly. Oh my, how did that guy get out so he could kill all those innocent paraders? DUH!!!
Click to expand...


Detector, you know what this lament reminds me of ? It reminds me of when I watch the Monday morning NFL recap game-highlights in slow motion. I can watch the quarterback throw to the left, leading to an interception.

So what do I yell at the TV set ? I yell: "That stupid quarterback should have thrown right, not left !!".

And what is the proof of my statement ? Easy : You can see it right there on slow-motion replay. So I can make PERFECT play-calls of "what the quarterback should have done".

Meaning, gee, I should have been an NFL quarterback. Since I obviously know what he should do. And if you doubt me, all I have to do is show you in slow-motion replay.

So too is it with anyone who commits a crime. ANY MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK can go look in the past and say : 'Why didn't someone anticipate this ?" and "how could those people around him have not known", etc.....

For every case like you cite, there's 10,000 other cases of the guy who got out, with a slap on the wrist, and went on NOT to "mow down people with his car".

Every one of us becomes a perfect play-caller shoulda-woulda-coulda, when we have the benefit of perfect slow -motion hindsight. And then we can appears to be geniuses on "how things should have been done".
 
Tom_in_CA said:
Saker, here's another way to resolve the issue of whether : It's hard-work on the part of Lawyers :

If someone thinks it's easy work, and obscene easy profits , then the solution is simple : Since it's so easy, why isn't a bunch more people rushing to do it ?

Trust me, if there were "easy paths to riches" (no schooling required, automatic obscene profits, etc...) then EVERYONE would be rushing to take that job.

I personally know a person who passed the bar, and tried to enter private practice. Gave up after a few years d/t didn't get enough business, in whatever particular arena of law they had schooled in. Thus no: Not all lawyers are guaranteed success.
Click to expand...

I agree..... Also if it is such easy work then people would just defend themselves right? I am sure somewhere there is a Dr that can replace a heart valve as easy as I can turn on my TV .........Somewhere else someone is having a difficult time frying the chicken nuggets. Yet I'm not paying $42,000 for chicken nuggets just as I would question a heart valve surgery for $4.99. :wow:
 
ebay doesn't charge the seller for sale taxes, only the buyer. As for selling fees, eBay makes it pretty clear the seller has to pay them and how much it is.
Click to expand...

Correct, but eBay charges a seller 12.55% of the sales tax paid by the buyer. In other words, if I sell something for $100 and the RI sales tax is $7.00, the buyer has to pay $107.00. They then charge me 12.55% of $107.00. They are charging me a fee for sales tax that I never received. Shouldn't be legal, but I'm sure Sleazbay had their lawyers look into it before springing that one on sellers.

Paypal did the same thing, but only charged 2.9% in fees. That's 9.65% less than what eBay is charging. Big difference over the course of a year. Say my buyers paid $2100 in tax on my 30k in sales over the course of a year. EBay will skim $263.50 off my profits, while Paypal would have taken $60.90 from my profits. That doesn't seem like much, but $200 more for doing the same transaction as Paypal used to do seems greedy as heck to me.
 
FreeBirdTim said:
.... before springing that one on sellers.....
Click to expand...

Interesting. Hhhhmmm. A way for Ebay to make a few more cents on each transaction. Not illegal, as you say, but ..... seemingly sleazy. Eh ?

HOWEVER, notice that Ebay is not lacking for business. Despite everyone griping and moaning about how sleazy and unfair they are, yet : They're still dominating the market. With eager buyers/sellers.

So: If they're so unfair and so mean, then : WHY IS IT STILL SO POPULAR WITH USER TRAFFIC ? Why aren't people just going elsewhere ? (CL, FB, Etsy, Ruby lane, etc...)

It's because the "crowds draw crowds" psychology phenomenon . And the "who was there first" phenomenon. Ie.: When you go to try other venues you will not get as much traffic and exposure.

It's like bar-hopping when out with your friends on a tourist strip : If you poke your head inside the door of a singles bar, and see the place is crowded with noise, people, dancing & music, THAT'S where you're going to go.

Contrast to if you poke your head into another bar, and see just a few people, and no noise, you're not going to go there. EVEN THOUGH that bar might have the cheaper drinks.

Instead, we go to the bar with all the people, and THEN gripe about how expensive the drinks are. :roll:
 
It was only a matter of time before eBay would need to start reporting to the IRS. IRS can't stand to miss a penny of someone else money.
 
Last edited:
FreeBirdTim said:
Correct, but eBay charges a seller 12.55% of the sales tax paid by the buyer. In other words, if I sell something for $100 and the RI sales tax is $7.00, the buyer has to pay $107.00. They then charge me 12.55% of $107.00. They are charging me a fee for sales tax that I never received. Shouldn't be legal, but I'm sure Sleazbay had their lawyers look into it before springing that one on sellers.

Paypal did the same thing, but only charged 2.9% in fees. That's 9.65% less than what eBay is charging. Big difference over the course of a year. Say my buyers paid $2100 in tax on my 30k in sales over the course of a year. EBay will skim $263.50 off my profits, while Paypal would have taken $60.90 from my profits. That doesn't seem like much, but $200 more for doing the same transaction as Paypal used to do seems greedy as heck to me.
Click to expand...

I'll have to take your word on that. I haven't used eBay in a while b/c of how their policies have been designed to push out all but "power sellers," but what you're describing wouldn't surprise me one bit.
 
Tom_in_CA said:
Interesting. Hhhhmmm. A way for Ebay to make a few more cents on each transaction. Not illegal, as you say, but ..... seemingly sleazy. Eh ?

HOWEVER, notice that Ebay is not lacking for business. Despite everyone griping and moaning about how sleazy and unfair they are, yet : They're still dominating the market. With eager buyers/sellers.

So: If they're so unfair and so mean, then : WHY IS IT STILL SO POPULAR WITH USER TRAFFIC ? Why aren't people just going elsewhere ? (CL, FB, Etsy, Ruby lane, etc...)

It's because the "crowds draw crowds" psychology phenomenon . And the "who was there first" phenomenon. Ie.: When you go to try other venues you will not get as much traffic and exposure.

It's like bar-hopping when out with your friends on a tourist strip : If you poke your head inside the door of a singles bar, and see the place is crowded with noise, people, dancing & music, THAT'S where you're going to go.

Contrast to if you poke your head into another bar, and see just a few people, and no noise, you're not going to go there. EVEN THOUGH that bar might have the cheaper drinks.

Instead, we go to the bar with all the people, and THEN gripe about how expensive the drinks are. :roll:
Click to expand...

How sure you about that? I know eBay is still in business, but from anecdotal evidence, there are fewer and fewer individual sellers on there. I think this is eBay's whole strategy, but I'm not sure it's a winning one. I just don't see eBay competing against the combined forces of free selling apps, Amazon, Mercari, Walmart.com, FB Marketplace, etc.
 
HOWEVER, notice that Ebay is not lacking for business. Despite everyone griping and moaning about how sleazy and unfair they are, yet : They're still dominating the market. With eager buyers/sellers.
Click to expand...

If they're dominating the market, why is Amazon stock currently $2,850 a share while eBay is $60 a share?
 
Back to the original topic of this thread, I am not sure it was clarified that these "reports" would currently only be reported on Goods and Services transactions, not F&F. I guess the question is how long before they figure out that people are buying stuff via F&F transactions and start watching that too?

This was from the PayPal Newsroom.

(1099-K Threshold Change:
This new Threshold Change is currently only for payments received for goods and services transactions, so this doesn’t include things like paying your family or friends back using PayPal or Venmo for dinner, gifts, shared trips, etc.
This change was introduced in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which amended some sections of the Internal Revenue Code to require Third-Party Settlement Organizations (TPSOs), like PayPal and Venmo, to report goods and services transactions made by customers with $600 or more in annual gross sales on 1099-K forms. Currently, a 1099-K is only required when a user receives more than $20,000 in goods and services transactions and more than 200 goods and services transactions in a calendar year.)

Also I will throw in one thought about lawyers gained from personal experience. Hopefully none of you ever have to go through the process of finding and placing a parent or other loved one in long term care. In our state there is really zero assistance. My mother has Alzheimer's and I have been helping my father try to get his estate in order and get my mother placed in long term care. We have been doing this with the assistance of an attorney specializing in Elder Law. I cannot even imagine attempting to do any of this on your own. One misstep can result in the loss of thousands of dollars. When you are watching your parents try to keep their home and some of the assets they've accumulated throughout their life, you will be very grateful for someone with the knowledge to "expose" every loophole and trick there is allowable by law. These attorneys have been nothing but gracious to my family and have on multiple occasions provided their time on the phone and in their office to answer our questions and help with paperwork. Ironically this particular attorney decided on this class of law because his grandfather needed long term care and his grandmother went at it alone and ended up losing hundreds of thousands of dollars and ultimately the family farm.
 
Diabolik said:
Back to the original topic of this thread, I am not sure it was clarified that these "reports" would currently only be reported on Goods and Services transactions, not F&F. I guess the question is how long before they figure out that people are buying stuff via F&F transactions and start watching that too?

This was my point all along. Thank you
Click to expand...
 
mh9162013 said:
But would the IRS accept hand written or self-made notes? That's what I'm curoius about. Because if they would, then it's no big deal. But I presume (b/c it's the IRS) that they would take your hand written notes and tell you to go jump off a cliff.

And by handwritten notes, I'm referring to any assertion that you're making about the cost basis in a transaction where you have no way of backing up what you're saying.

I've completed tax schedules before where I just input data. So in a way, that's just a handwritten note. But I had actual receipts or official records to back up what I was saying (like receipts from buying or selling stocks).

And I understand you don't need to attach receipts to your return. But you need them in case you get audited. So what happens when you get audited due to your $800 or...$2,000 in yard sale flips where you have no way of proving what you paid for the items you sold? Tough luck and you just have to pay what the IRS says you owe them?
Click to expand...

I can't speak from experience, but I imagine the auditor would have some latitude in what they accept as reasonable proof. Probably depends on the auditor as much as anything.

A quick google shows "...Cohan Rule...an exception to stringent IRS record-keeping requirements. It allows taxpayers to prove by “other credible evidence”..."

As long as your notes show you made an effort to document, and don't look like something your wrote down the night before the audit, it might fly...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Advice please
Replies
6
Views
80
Toddy654
T
maxxkatt
Which detector was the hardest to learn for you?
Replies
18
Views
166
oldkoot
O
M
Meteorite Rockhounding
Replies
5
Views
74
Montrose81401
M
Z
Silver ore
Replies
8
Views
153
GTimberMT
GTimberMT
V
Who did it?
Replies
16
Views
239
vmc1161
V
Back
Top Bottom