Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What's the Easiest Way to Cheat on Your Taxes?
72 views
Skip to first unread message
William Brenner
Apr 5, 2012, 10:12:45 AM4/5/12
to
This NY Times article says it all -- or at least part of it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/magazine/whats-the-easiest-way-to-cheat-on-your-taxes.html?hpw
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/magazine/whats-the-easiest-way-to-cheat-on-your-taxes.html?hpw
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
Pico Rico
Apr 5, 2012, 11:35:38 AM4/5/12
to
"William Brenner" <wbre...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8696d2de-3289-449a...@h12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> This NY Times article says it all -- or at least part of it:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/magazine/whats-the-easiest-way-to-cheat-on-your-taxes.html?hpw
>
I always find it funny that people call a specifically targeted tax law to
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/magazine/whats-the-easiest-way-to-cheat-on-your-taxes.html?hpw
>
be a "loophole". It used to be that a loophole was considered an
unintended but legal application of a tax law intended for a different
purpose.
"A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law
or restriction without directly violating the law. Used often in discussions
of taxes and their avoidance, loopholes provide ways for individuals and
companies to remove income or assets from taxable situations into ones with
lower taxes or none at all."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/loophole.asp#ixzz1rAzLGKLQ
The home mortgage interest deduction, for example, is not a loophole.
Whether you think it wise is an entirely different matter.
Barry Margolin
Apr 5, 2012, 1:43:52 PM4/5/12
to
In article <jlkaa5$c77$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
home when they might otherwise not have been able to afford it, or
simply to encourage home buying, then it's a loophole when it gets used
by people who CAN afford to buy a home and would have bought one even
without the deduction.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
"Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote:
> "William Brenner" <wbre...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:8696d2de-3289-449a...@h12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > This NY Times article says it all -- or at least part of it:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/magazine/whats-the-easiest-way-to-cheat-on
> > -your-taxes.html?hpw
> >
>
>
> I always find it funny that people call a specifically targeted tax law to
> be a "loophole". It used to be that a loophole was considered an
> unintended but legal application of a tax law intended for a different
> purpose.
...
> "William Brenner" <wbre...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:8696d2de-3289-449a...@h12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > This NY Times article says it all -- or at least part of it:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/magazine/whats-the-easiest-way-to-cheat-on
> > -your-taxes.html?hpw
> >
>
>
> I always find it funny that people call a specifically targeted tax law to
> be a "loophole". It used to be that a loophole was considered an
> unintended but legal application of a tax law intended for a different
> purpose.
>
> The home mortgage interest deduction, for example, is not a loophole.
> Whether you think it wise is an entirely different matter.
If the purpose of the mortgage deduction was to enable people to buy a
> The home mortgage interest deduction, for example, is not a loophole.
> Whether you think it wise is an entirely different matter.
home when they might otherwise not have been able to afford it, or
simply to encourage home buying, then it's a loophole when it gets used
by people who CAN afford to buy a home and would have bought one even
without the deduction.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
JoeTaxpayer
Apr 5, 2012, 2:01:44 PM4/5/12
to
On 4/5/12 11:35 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
> http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/loophole.asp#ixzz1rAzLGKLQ
>
> The home mortgage interest deduction, for example, is not a loophole.
> Whether you think it wise is an entirely different matter.
There are legal terms, well defined, and not open to debate. Then there
> http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/loophole.asp#ixzz1rAzLGKLQ
>
> The home mortgage interest deduction, for example, is not a loophole.
> Whether you think it wise is an entirely different matter.
are term where usage dictates meaning.
Maybe we can agree that the tax code is far too complex. That every
'good' thing (say the cap gain rate) can be used in a way (say for hedge
fund managers to turn their millions of income to cap gains at 15%) that
makes them 'bad.'
The latest round of discussion on how startup IPO options land inside
Roth accounts. I can see the reaction to this becoming an overreaction
and closing opportunities that can be used to help 'normal' people
manage their retirement accounts.
It seems the article is all over the place in term of how it describes
deductions and ways to cheat. Truth is, nothing new to read there.
removep...@yahoo.com
Apr 5, 2012, 3:03:08 PM4/5/12
to
On Thursday, April 5, 2012 7:12:45 AM UTC-7, William Brenner wrote:
Some common ways I image:
Overinflate charitable contributions. Donation sites just give you a receipt with the date on it, so you can put any number of items on it, even taking thrift store value for these many items it can add up. You can donate crappy things and still claim a deduction for it, although the code only lets you take a deduction for stuff in good or better condition.
Overinflate the part of your house used exclusively and regularly for business.
Overinflate the business miles driven. I think you get something like 50 cents a mile, and that will probably become 60 cents this year if gas prices keep rising.
Some common ways I image:
Overinflate charitable contributions. Donation sites just give you a receipt with the date on it, so you can put any number of items on it, even taking thrift store value for these many items it can add up. You can donate crappy things and still claim a deduction for it, although the code only lets you take a deduction for stuff in good or better condition.
Overinflate the part of your house used exclusively and regularly for business.
Overinflate the business miles driven. I think you get something like 50 cents a mile, and that will probably become 60 cents this year if gas prices keep rising.
Pico Rico
Apr 5, 2012, 4:06:23 PM4/5/12
to
<removep...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2950898.393.1333652454381.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynuu4...
> On Thursday, April 5, 2012 7:12:45 AM UTC-7, William Brenner wrote:
>
> Some common ways I image:
>
> Overinflate charitable contributions. Donation sites just give you a
> receipt with the date on it, so you can put any number of items on it,
> even taking thrift store value for these many items it can add up. You
> can donate crappy things and still claim a deduction for it, although the
> code only lets you take a deduction for stuff in good or better condition.
>
> Overinflate the part of your house used exclusively and regularly for
> business.
>
> Overinflate the business miles driven. I think you get something like 50
> cents a mile, and that will probably become 60 cents this year if gas
> prices keep rising.
>
The easiest way to cheat on your taxes is to not work, to extend your
>
> Some common ways I image:
>
> Overinflate charitable contributions. Donation sites just give you a
> receipt with the date on it, so you can put any number of items on it,
> even taking thrift store value for these many items it can add up. You
> can donate crappy things and still claim a deduction for it, although the
> code only lets you take a deduction for stuff in good or better condition.
>
> Overinflate the part of your house used exclusively and regularly for
> business.
>
> Overinflate the business miles driven. I think you get something like 50
> cents a mile, and that will probably become 60 cents this year if gas
> prices keep rising.
>
unemployment benefits as long as possible, to not work overtime when
offered, allowing others to foot the bill for your consumption of government
services.
or are these "loopholes"?
removep...@yahoo.com
Apr 5, 2012, 5:04:39 PM4/5/12
to
On Thursday, April 5, 2012 1:06:23 PM UTC-7, Pico Rico wrote:
> <removep...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> The easiest way to cheat on your taxes is to not work, to extend your
> unemployment benefits as long as possible, to not work overtime when
> offered, allowing others to foot the bill for your consumption of government
> services.
Sorry, this is getting political. The methods I gave are ones that seem like they are common enough.
> <removep...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> The easiest way to cheat on your taxes is to not work, to extend your
> unemployment benefits as long as possible, to not work overtime when
> offered, allowing others to foot the bill for your consumption of government
> services.
Dick Adams
Apr 7, 2012, 12:17:10 AM4/7/12
to
William Brenner <wbre...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> This NY Times article says it all -- or at least part of it:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/magazine/whats-the-easiest-way
> -to-cheat-on-your-taxes.html?
If a student had submitted the above article as a
> This NY Times article says it all -- or at least part of it:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/magazine/whats-the-easiest-way
> -to-cheat-on-your-taxes.html?
paper, I would have given it a grade of "U" as in
Unacceptable. It does not deserve a grade of "A"
thru "F" because it has no focus. It rambles
hither and yon. But worst of all, it reminds me
of the now defunct "Renaissance Group" that had
everyone filing a Schedule C.
I have been seeing a pain management doctor on a
regular basis since my second back surgery (about
six years). He once asked me if there was a way
for him to deduct his children's private school
tuition from his gross income. I smiled and said
that I knew a way, but my explaining it to him
would be as unethical as him explaining to me how
to make synthetic heroin.
Dick
P.S.: Just had surgery #25 since June 2003. Like
the Energizer Bunny, I just keep going.
Dick Adams
Apr 7, 2012, 12:31:57 AM4/7/12
to
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
of something, you subsidize it. If you want less of
something, you tax it. Thus, the mortgage interest
deduction serves tosubsidize home ownership.
You can also look at the mortgage interest deduction
as welfare for home owners. Doing so makes it easier
to swallow some of the other deductions. ;)
Dick
> "Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote:
>> I always find it funny that people call a specifically targeted tax law to
>> be a "loophole". It used to be that a loophole was considered an
>> unintended but legal application of a tax law intended for a different
>> purpose.
>...
>>
>> The home mortgage interest deduction, for example, is not a loophole.
>> Whether you think it wise is an entirely different matter.
> If the purpose of the mortgage deduction was to enable
> people to buy a home when they might otherwise not
> have been able to afford it, or simply to encourage
> home buying, then it's a loophole when it gets used
> by people who CAN afford to buy a home and would have
> bought one even without the deduction.
It was the late Jack Kemp who said: If you want more
>> I always find it funny that people call a specifically targeted tax law to
>> be a "loophole". It used to be that a loophole was considered an
>> unintended but legal application of a tax law intended for a different
>> purpose.
>...
>>
>> The home mortgage interest deduction, for example, is not a loophole.
>> Whether you think it wise is an entirely different matter.
> If the purpose of the mortgage deduction was to enable
> people to buy a home when they might otherwise not
> have been able to afford it, or simply to encourage
> home buying, then it's a loophole when it gets used
> by people who CAN afford to buy a home and would have
> bought one even without the deduction.
of something, you subsidize it. If you want less of
something, you tax it. Thus, the mortgage interest
deduction serves tosubsidize home ownership.
You can also look at the mortgage interest deduction
as welfare for home owners. Doing so makes it easier
to swallow some of the other deductions. ;)
Dick
removep...@yahoo.com
Apr 9, 2012, 2:04:48 PM4/9/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 9:31:57 PM UTC-7, Dick Adams wrote:
> It was the late Jack Kemp who said: If you want more
> of something, you subsidize it. If you want less of
> something, you tax it. Thus, the mortgage interest
> deduction serves tosubsidize home ownership.
That might not be true. The mortgage interest deduction may have increased home ownership when it was first introduced, but over time it raises house prices as people bid more on houses. So with the deduction home ownership might be 60% and average house price $1,000,000; and without the deduction home ownership might still be 60% and average house price $800,000.
> It was the late Jack Kemp who said: If you want more
> of something, you subsidize it. If you want less of
> something, you tax it. Thus, the mortgage interest
> deduction serves tosubsidize home ownership.
> You can also look at the mortgage interest deduction
> as welfare for home owners. Doing so makes it easier
> to swallow some of the other deductions. ;)
0 new messages