IRS is ater your money

[StillCrazy]

Met with my CPA yesterday and apparently IRS will be looking at capital expenditure deductions and amortizations closer than they ever had before.

He basically explained it like this.

You buy a used piece of gear for 3000. Generally you will write this off as a capital expenditure.

Now the IRS (not sure how - may be an audit?? - don't know for sure) will see your deduction and check what the actual value a piece of gear has (this is actually what a bank will loan you for it).

You will only be allowed to deduct the actual loan value not what you paid. If your 3k piece only has a loan value of 2100. You will get that as your deduction. If you paid less you can only deduct what you paid.

Believe the law was passed several years back but with the decrease in tax revenue they apparently are looking at ways to increase and this is actually a simple one for them.

Just an FYI.

[Musiclab]

I'm glad I bought all new gear this year

[quantumpsych]

Originally Posted by StillCrazy

Believe the law was passed several years back but with the decrease in tax revenue they apparently are looking at ways to increase and this is actually a simple one for them.

Just an FYI.

or, ya know, the d**che bags in charge could just close all the loop holes for the rich. but that would make too much sense.

[Ricey]

isn't it enough that my studio can't be used as equity?

[quantumpsych]

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!! is it still possible write off records as research material?

[Liquid360]

It pisses me off that the word "capitalism" is a dirty word right now. That's what this country was built on.

[Ricey]

corporatism is the dirty word, not capitalism IMO

[quantumpsych]

it's the collusion between corporation and state that the protests are about.

[StillCrazy]

Originally Posted by quantumpsych

it's the collusion between corporation and state that the protests are about.

Actually if you listen to some of the statements being made by these yahoos it would seem they are like the chicken running around the yard after it's head been chopped off.

Want to really know what it's about - as always follow the money trail back to who is funding these actions. There are groups doing this.

A bunch want their college loans absolved. I say OK but there degrees earned should become null and void. I managed to get an A.S., B.S. and a PHD and all I did while doing it was raise a family, work 1 full time job and one part tie job while going to college. I have no pity for people who can't take care of their own finances.

I worked my ass off because I had a family to support and I didn't want to end up poor like I was when I grew up.

Remember the line from the old 10CC song.

"Tax the rich till there ain't no rich anymore" then where will you get your public dough?

The most useful thing I learned wile getting my masters was this:

TANSTAAFL.

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

There done preaching. Have a good one.

[MTStudios]

Sure but a free lunch is exactly what people who are born rich get from life. Inheriting wealth is inherently(haha!) bad for society.

If you think it's fair that while rich kids, who've essentially achieved nothing (having only recently come into existance), get to go to better schools meanwhile their parents are advocating for less public education funding so that they can avoid being taxed. Do you really think they're on equal ground with the kids whose start to life is in a poorly funded public school?

Yes I realise there's exceptions, that some people are exceptionally driven and can lift themselves out of anywhere, but we can't expect that from everyone in a society. Yet I don't think it's fair NOR in our best interests to let people fall to the lowest rung too easily.

Anyway, meanwhile the rich are perfectly happy to make use of facilities provided by tax payers, they're aghast at the concept of making a contribution to the well being of a society they're a part of? It's not just roads and public buildings, it's the measures that society has put in place to keep people from becoming desperate and uneducated.

The measures that keep crime low, etc. If people don't want to be taxed they have no right to complain when they get robbed, shot, and shouldn't be allowed to dial 911, use roads, have a sewerage system, enjoy the judicial system, complain when their neighbours building isn't to code, etc.

And yet there's an aspect of self interest in keeping society at a certain level of dysfunction. If people are less educated, they're less able to defend themselves, less able to advocate themselves, and less aware of how or when they're being exploited.

But I'll agree with you on one point, in a way, as soon as a group starts protesting or advocating something publicly, then a whole bunch of people start throwing their issues into the mix, their interpretations, and the whole thing becomes a bit ambiguous.

I'm sure not everyone there agrees on everything.


EDIT: Oh and on the topic of a free lunch... allowing companies who essentially royally ****ed up their responsibilities and failed as a financial institution, to continue doing business through means of a government handout is PRETTY MUCH the meaning of a free lunch. "Hey you screwed up, lots of people lost their jobs, here's a pat on the back, go buy yourself a new ferrari, you deserve it!" just another of many things that would have people down there.


/cough
and back to your usual programming!

[StillCrazy]

Originally Posted by MTStudios

Sure but a free lunch is exactly what people who are born rich get from life. Inheriting wealth is inherently(haha!) bad for society.

If you think it's fair that while rich kids, who've essentially achieved nothing (having only recently come into existance), get to go to better schools meanwhile their parents are advocating for less public education funding so that they can avoid being taxed. Do you really think they're on equal ground with the kids whose start to life is in a poorly funded public school?

Yes I realise there's exceptions, that some people are exceptionally driven and can lift themselves out of anywhere, but we can't expect that from everyone in a society. Yet I don't think it's fair NOR in our best interests to let people fall to the lowest rung too easily.

Anyway, meanwhile the rich are perfectly happy to make use of facilities provided by tax payers, they're aghast at the concept of making a contribution to the well being of a society they're a part of? It's not just roads and public buildings, it's the measures that society has put in place to keep people from becoming desperate and uneducated.

The measures that keep crime low, etc. If people don't want to be taxed they have no right to complain when they get robbed, shot, and shouldn't be allowed to dial 911, use roads, have a sewerage system, enjoy the judicial system, complain when their neighbours building isn't to code, etc.

And yet there's an aspect of self interest in keeping society at a certain level of dysfunction. If people are less educated, they're less able to defend themselves, less able to advocate themselves, and less aware of how or when they're being exploited.

But I'll agree with you on one point, in a way, as soon as a group starts protesting or advocating something publicly, then a whole bunch of people start throwing their issues into the mix, their interpretations, and the whole thing becomes a bit ambiguous.

I'm sure not everyone there agrees on everything.


EDIT: Oh and on the topic of a free lunch... allowing companies who essentially royally ****ed up their responsibilities and failed as a financial institution, to continue doing business through means of a government handout is PRETTY MUCH the meaning of a free lunch. "Hey you screwed up, lots of people lost their jobs, here's a pat on the back, go buy yourself a new ferrari, you deserve it!" just another of many things that would have people down there.


/cough
and back to your usual programming!

Agreed - unbelievable amount of corporate greed in a few companies. I was on a business trip and was in an elevator when two smucks from one of the companies that got a bailout were bragging how they were going to give themselves bonuses because there was no government involvement in tracking how the bailout was used.

Pissed me off to no end and I spoke up and they just told me I was a fool. Obviously there are issues and they start at the people we elect and put in office - most companies have a difficult time staying in business because of the draconian laws that have been put in place that inhibit good companies from expanding or even getting started. I can say this with experience because I have consulted with mainly the top 500 firms in the US and Europe.

To some of your statements:

"Anyway, meanwhile the rich are perfectly happy to make use of facilities provided by tax payers, they're aghast at the concept of making a contribution to the well being of a society they're a part of? It's not just roads and public buildings, it's the measures that society has put in place to keep people from becoming desperate and uneducated.

They do this because of the laws in place. Who made the laws?

"And yet there's an aspect of self interest in keeping society at a certain level of dysfunction. If people are less educated, they're less able to defend themselves, less able to advocate themselves, and less aware of how or when they're being exploited."

Why does this happen? Have you watched the news? This is so much bogus information being put out as truth its scary. I always find it interesting when I call someone on rather left or right wing statements to offer proof and in 99% of the cases they just repeat what they hear.

Very few do research to determine what is real. I think this is what concerns me more than a lot of other issues.

In the end can you trust a government that makes laws that excludes them from what we are subjected to?

It's a mess and unfortunately we have allowed it to happen.

[piotr]

It's a mess and unfortunately we have allowed it to happen.

And can you tell us exactly WHEN did we allow this to happen?
Since you are talking about research and all, I am just curious if you can explain/contextualize this particular statement?

Thank you,
p.

[MTStudios]

Well, W. Bush was quite the de-regulator of the banking/finance sector, apparently.

This Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was apparently Clinton but was passed by a republican congress, and brought forth by Phil Gramm.

James Moore: A Nation of Village Idiots

Did Liberals Cause the Sub-Prime Crisis?

Ehh. It's 1am here. This is the best response I can muster for now. Essentially, people have jumped on the de-regularisation bandwagon and forgotten that government was originally there to protect the people, that's what these laws and regulations were legislated to do.

[StillCrazy]

Originally Posted by piotr

And can you tell us exactly WHEN did we allow this to happen?
Since you are talking about research and all, I am just curious if you can explain/contextualize this particular statement?

Thank you,
p.

You may not agree but this is what I think. As a whole most people vote on a party line - they do not do research to determine what each candidate actually says they want to do and what they have really done in the past.

My decisions are based on being a fairly well versed student of history (certainly don't know it all but I try to learn as much a I can - usually from several sources - remember that the victors write the rules and the history) and from actually doing research on the individuals who run for office. Again, I get information from various source. I have found that by reviewing information and transcripts of the various law determining bodies (federal, state and local) to detail how various people really feel and vote on subjects.

This is usually the best indicator of persons actual beliefs and what their goals will be NO matter what they say to get elected.

In the end it is up it each individual to determine what they believe. I have my ways as detailed above and I'm sure you have yours.

I am a fairly conservative individual who took a lot of heat in the HIPPIE culture of the 60's from my friends because of my views. I was always interested why people take certain actions with no real basis or proof involved (my initial cause of this was religion - I questioned why people believed the Bible as the end all to things). This being said I back the person I believe is best per my opinion on that individual. I have voted for republican, democrat and independent candidates based on my research and what I came to believe about the individual.

My immediate family members are basically democratic party voters. No matter who or their qualifications. To say the least they do not relish my asking them discuss why they vote a certain way. All they can do is say the other candidate is evil.

Hope this helps you understand. I hope you all do your research.

Funny isn't it. Politics is sorta like coming to GS and trying to get an opinion on a piece of gear.

[piotr]

Originally Posted by StillCrazy

You may not agree but this is what I think. As a whole most people vote on a party line - they do not do research to determine what each candidate actually says they want to do and what they have really done in the past.

My decisions are based on being a fairly well versed student of history (certainly don't know it all but I try to learn as much a I can - usually from several sources - remember that the victors write the rules and the history) and from actually doing research on the individuals who run for office. Again, I get information from various source. I have found that by reviewing information and transcripts of the various law determining bodies (federal, state and local) to detail how various people really feel and vote on subjects.

This is usually the best indicator of persons actual beliefs and what their goals will be NO matter what they say to get elected.

In the end it is up it each individual to determine what they believe. I have my ways as detailed above and I'm sure you have yours.

I am a fairly conservative individual who took a lot of heat in the HIPPIE culture of the 60's from my friends because of my views. I was always interested why people take certain actions with no real basis or proof involved (my initial cause of this was religion - I questioned why people believed the Bible as the end all to things). This being said I back the person I believe is best per my opinion on that individual. I have voted for republican, democrat and independent candidates based on my research and what I came to believe about the individual.

My immediate family members are basically democratic party voters. No matter who or their qualifications. To say the least they do not relish my asking them discuss why they vote a certain way. All they can do is say the other candidate is evil.

Hope this helps you understand. I hope you all do your research.

Funny isn't it. Politics is sorta like coming to GS and trying to get an opinion on a piece of gear.

This is all nice to know about you.
Thank you for sharing.

But I was hoping to hear your response to my question, as to when you feel we have "allowed it to happen"?
Based on your research: how far back in history can we concretely point out the people's fault? You allude to elections... which ones?

How about Roosevelt? There is a theory that WWII was the point in American history, when people decided to set aside ideals of liberty, and "blindly" support the government. Of course the circumstances called for that, but in effect, the relationship between the people and the government had changed. And not for the better.

Is that going too far? Not far enough?

p.

[StillCrazy]

Originally Posted by piotr

This is all nice to know about you.
Thank you for sharing.

But I was hoping to hear your response to my question, as to when you feel we have "allowed it to happen"?
p.

I wrote the initial thread as an FYI concerning IRS.

My last statement on this.

Every time you cast a ballot to keep the same person in power.

My opinion - nothing else to say on the subject.

[piotr]

Originally Posted by StillCrazy

I wrote the initial thread as an FYI concerning IRS.

My last statement on this.

Every time you cast a ballot to keep the same person in power.

My opinion - nothing else to say on the subject.

Neville Brody said this during a lecture I saw some years ago:

"If elections changed anything, they'd bann it!"

It really stuck with me. There is something quite true in that simple, thought-provoking statement.

Sincerely,
p.

[Liquid360]

[unitymusic]

Originally Posted by piotr

This is all nice to know about you.
Thank you for sharing.

But I was hoping to hear your response to my question, as to when you feel we have "allowed it to happen"?
Based on your research: how far back in history can we concretely point out the people's fault? You allude to elections... which ones?

How about Roosevelt? There is a theory that WWII was the point in American history, when people decided to set aside ideals of liberty, and "blindly" support the government. Of course the circumstances called for that, but in effect, the relationship between the people and the government had changed. And not for the better.

Is that going too far? Not far enough?

p.

1913. The Federal Reserve Act = the beginning of our 'privatized debt economy'. Though WWII may be when the public shift of opinion began, the real damage had been done.

Charles Lindbergh said a few days before the bill was passed:

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realize that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by taking control of Congress. Wall Streeters could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives did not make a humbug of Congress. . .

If we had a people's Congress, there would be stability.
The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government".

[Dec. 23, 1913]

[piotr]

Originally Posted by unitymusic

1913. The Federal Reserve Act = the beginning of our 'privatized debt economy'. Though WWII may be when the public shift of opinion began, the real damage had been done.

Charles Lindbergh said a few days before the bill was passed:

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realize that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by taking control of Congress. Wall Streeters could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives did not make a humbug of Congress. . .

If we had a people's Congress, there would be stability.
The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government".

[Dec. 23, 1913]

Good stuff!
Thank you for posting this.
p.

[slaves666]

Seems like the IRS got the "f" in the title line....

"IRS is ater your money"

[piotr]

Originally Posted by slaves666

Seems like the IRS got the "f" in the title line....

"IRS is ater your money"

they are after your "f"!

;-)

p.

[oldeanalogueguy]

Originally Posted by StillCrazy

Met with my CPA yesterday and apparently IRS will be looking at capital expenditure deductions and amortizations closer than they ever had before.

He basically explained it like this.

You buy a used piece of gear for 3000. Generally you will write this off as a capital expenditure.

Now the IRS (not sure how - may be an audit?? - don't know for sure) will see your deduction and check what the actual value a piece of gear has (this is actually what a bank will loan you for it).

You will only be allowed to deduct the actual loan value not what you paid. If your 3k piece only has a loan value of 2100. You will get that as your deduction. If you paid less you can only deduct what you paid.

Believe the law was passed several years back but with the decrease in tax revenue they apparently are looking at ways to increase and this is actually a simple one for them.

Just an FYI.

i doubt that your cpa is right
they are very conservative with your deductins
so they dont get on the irs bad list
good for them
bad for you

you should be able to take fair market value of anything
not just a loan amount unless you meant 100% loan value
which makes them the same thing

what the irs doesnt want
is you inflating the value to get a bigger deduction

and no you cant deduct list price for new stuff you bought on sale. you need receipts for everything.

[oldeanalogueguy]

Originally Posted by piotr

And can you tell us exactly WHEN did we allow this to happen?
Since you are talking about research and all, I am just curious if you can explain/contextualize this particular statement?

Thank you,
p.

when did the frog boil as you slowly turned up the heat??

[oldeanalogueguy]

Originally Posted by quantumpsych

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!! is it still possible write off records as research material?

nope

and it never was

unless you were doing a phd in music