Geithner coming after your cellphone usage!

[del]

This wasn't a loophole, it was simply an un-enforceable law. There's a difference.

While I understand the difference from a technical perspective, in practice is there really a difference?

Yes there is quite a difference. In 1989 when this law was passed, it required record-keeping of all calls by the employees and the employer. It wasn't enforced because of this cumbersome requirement, and went 20 years without being addressed. So, no loophole technical or otherwise, it was simply forgotten and never enforced.

A loophole is a legal out that goes around the law, isn't against the law but violates the spirit and intent of the law.

I understand what you're saying, but the use of the term "loophole" is highly inaccurate here. It incorrectly lumps it in with major problems we have with enforceable laws that are enforced. Unless of course, there's a loophole!

You illegal alien example doesn't fit. There's no loophole in that law, it's simply not enforced like it should be. Just like this cellphone tax law.

Problem is now, folks like Mountain Man will still be taxed for that company cellphone whether he uses it for personal or not.

i'll give mine back. fuck it, it's certainly not a benefit to be on call 24/7 and i've got my own anyway.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Yes there is quite a difference. In 1989 when this law was passed, it required record-keeping of all calls by the employees and the employer. It wasn't enforced because of this cumbersome requirement, and went 20 years without being addressed. So, no loophole technical or otherwise, it was simply forgotten and never enforced.

Well you bring up an very interesting point, if in 1989 the cost of enforcement (record-keeping as you put it) was prohibitive why then was it ever put on the books? could it be that the legislators don't consider the costs of the legislation they implement prior to implementation?

A loophole is a legal out that goes around the law, isn't against the law but violates the spirit and intent of the law.I understand what you're saying, but the use of the term "loophole" is highly inaccurate here. It incorrectly lumps it in with major problems we have with enforceable laws that are enforced. Unless of course, there's a loophole!

You are of course correct and spelled out the difference very succinctly

Problem is now, folks like Mountain Man will still be taxed for that company cellphone whether he uses it for personal or not.

Good point!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Well you bring up an very interesting point, if in 1989 the cost of enforcement (record-keeping as you put it) was prohibitive why then was it ever put on the books? could it be that the legislators don't consider the costs of the legislation they implement prior to implementation?

In 1989 cellphones were pretty new, and pretty rare. Only the "elite" class had them, and they had no reason to know what the technological explosion would be. It was one of those "feel good" laws that was about class envy more than anything else.

More proof that when you pass tax laws whose mission is to punish success, instead of raising revenue, you don't get any revenue!

 

[Nik]

This wasn't a loophole, it was simply an un-enforceable law. There's a difference.

While I understand the difference from a technical perspective, in practice is there really a difference?

Yes there is quite a difference. In 1989 when this law was passed, it required record-keeping of all calls by the employees and the employer. It wasn't enforced because of this cumbersome requirement, and went 20 years without being addressed. So, no loophole technical or otherwise, it was simply forgotten and never enforced.

A loophole is a legal out that goes around the law, isn't against the law but violates the spirit and intent of the law.

I understand what you're saying, but the use of the term "loophole" is highly inaccurate here. It incorrectly lumps it in with major problems we have with enforceable laws that are enforced. Unless of course, there's a loophole!

You illegal alien example doesn't fit. There's no loophole in that law, it's simply not enforced like it should be. Just like this cellphone tax law.

Problem is now, folks like Mountain Man will still be taxed for that company cellphone whether he uses it for personal or not.

Incorrect. If you can show that you don't use it for personal calls, then its tax exempt.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

In 1989 cellphones were pretty new, and pretty rare. Only the "elite" class had them, and they had no reason to know what the technological explosion would be. It was one of those "feel good" laws that was about class envy more than anything else.

More proof that when you pass tax laws whose mission is to punish success, instead of raising revenue, you don't get any revenue!

Great assessment MM however I still contend that this is a GREAT example of the MO of regulators, to whit, they never consider the actual costs of regulation nor put any effort into attempting to foresee unintended consequences... it's essentially a GREAT case why central planning doesn't work.

Excellent response MM !

 

[Midnight Marauder]

While I understand the difference from a technical perspective, in practice is there really a difference?

Yes there is quite a difference. In 1989 when this law was passed, it required record-keeping of all calls by the employees and the employer. It wasn't enforced because of this cumbersome requirement, and went 20 years without being addressed. So, no loophole technical or otherwise, it was simply forgotten and never enforced.

A loophole is a legal out that goes around the law, isn't against the law but violates the spirit and intent of the law.

I understand what you're saying, but the use of the term "loophole" is highly inaccurate here. It incorrectly lumps it in with major problems we have with enforceable laws that are enforced. Unless of course, there's a loophole!

You illegal alien example doesn't fit. There's no loophole in that law, it's simply not enforced like it should be. Just like this cellphone tax law.

Problem is now, folks like Mountain Man will still be taxed for that company cellphone whether he uses it for personal or not.

Incorrect. If you can show that you don't use it for personal calls, then its tax exempt.

That was the old law. From what I read, now it's a fringe benefit and is considered income whether you use it or not. (That's actually one of the three options presented, and this issue is open for "public comment" to the IRS until Sept. 9.)

 

[Nik]

Yes there is quite a difference. In 1989 when this law was passed, it required record-keeping of all calls by the employees and the employer. It wasn't enforced because of this cumbersome requirement, and went 20 years without being addressed. So, no loophole technical or otherwise, it was simply forgotten and never enforced.

A loophole is a legal out that goes around the law, isn't against the law but violates the spirit and intent of the law.

I understand what you're saying, but the use of the term "loophole" is highly inaccurate here. It incorrectly lumps it in with major problems we have with enforceable laws that are enforced. Unless of course, there's a loophole!

You illegal alien example doesn't fit. There's no loophole in that law, it's simply not enforced like it should be. Just like this cellphone tax law.

Problem is now, folks like Mountain Man will still be taxed for that company cellphone whether he uses it for personal or not.

Incorrect. If you can show that you don't use it for personal calls, then its tax exempt.

That was the old law. From what I read, now it's a fringe benefit and is considered income whether you use it or not. (That's actually one of the three options presented, and this issue is open for "public comment" to the IRS until Sept. 9.)

Where are you getting your information from? The original post seems to say something different.

 

[alan1]

At my last job, I carried a company cell phone 24/7. I never once used it for personal use. I never gave out the number to anybody except people that I worked with. My daughters didn't even have the number, they called my personal cell phone if they needed to talk of me.
Should I have been taxed for that?

Probably not, it doesn't sound like a benefit.

I know lots of people who get company cell phones where the company takes over the entire plan. Corporate and personal calls included + a free blackberry. Now tell me why that shouldn't be taxed?

Tell me how the government can tell the difference.

 

[xotoxi]

What happens if you work for the cell phone company and your job is to go around and make calls to see if the network is working?

Is that a benefit, or just part of your job?

 

[alan1]

While I understand the difference from a technical perspective, in practice is there really a difference?

Yes there is quite a difference. In 1989 when this law was passed, it required record-keeping of all calls by the employees and the employer. It wasn't enforced because of this cumbersome requirement, and went 20 years without being addressed. So, no loophole technical or otherwise, it was simply forgotten and never enforced.

A loophole is a legal out that goes around the law, isn't against the law but violates the spirit and intent of the law.

I understand what you're saying, but the use of the term "loophole" is highly inaccurate here. It incorrectly lumps it in with major problems we have with enforceable laws that are enforced. Unless of course, there's a loophole!

You illegal alien example doesn't fit. There's no loophole in that law, it's simply not enforced like it should be. Just like this cellphone tax law.

Problem is now, folks like Mountain Man will still be taxed for that company cellphone whether he uses it for personal or not.

Incorrect. If you can show that you don't use it for personal calls, then its tax exempt.

So now, it's guilty until proven innocent.
You are are an excellent tool.

 

[Nik]

At my last job, I carried a company cell phone 24/7. I never once used it for personal use. I never gave out the number to anybody except people that I worked with. My daughters didn't even have the number, they called my personal cell phone if they needed to talk of me.
Should I have been taxed for that?

Probably not, it doesn't sound like a benefit.

I know lots of people who get company cell phones where the company takes over the entire plan. Corporate and personal calls included + a free blackberry. Now tell me why that shouldn't be taxed?

Tell me how the government can tell the difference.

You can show the government that you don't.

 

[Nik]

Yes there is quite a difference. In 1989 when this law was passed, it required record-keeping of all calls by the employees and the employer. It wasn't enforced because of this cumbersome requirement, and went 20 years without being addressed. So, no loophole technical or otherwise, it was simply forgotten and never enforced.

A loophole is a legal out that goes around the law, isn't against the law but violates the spirit and intent of the law.

I understand what you're saying, but the use of the term "loophole" is highly inaccurate here. It incorrectly lumps it in with major problems we have with enforceable laws that are enforced. Unless of course, there's a loophole!

You illegal alien example doesn't fit. There's no loophole in that law, it's simply not enforced like it should be. Just like this cellphone tax law.

Problem is now, folks like Mountain Man will still be taxed for that company cellphone whether he uses it for personal or not.

Incorrect. If you can show that you don't use it for personal calls, then its tax exempt.

So now, it's guilty until proven innocent.
You are are an excellent tool.

Guilty? These aren't crimes, genius.

 

[caela]

Probably not, it doesn't sound like a benefit.

I know lots of people who get company cell phones where the company takes over the entire plan. Corporate and personal calls included + a free blackberry. Now tell me why that shouldn't be taxed?

Tell me how the government can tell the difference.

You can show the government that you don't.

How are you going to show you don't? You don't get the bill for a work phone, your job does so you don't actually have any records of what calls you make.

I personally think this is a bad tax. The vast majority of the people I know that have a work phone didn't want the thing, it was foisted off on them by their jobs. Typically it is not something you choose (unlike your health insurance and I think taxing that is BS as well) but something they tell you you have to have on you so that your boss/client/whomever can reach you 24/7.

I have a pager that my hospital gave to me...should I be taxed simply because I have it? I don't want it, I never use it, it sits on my desk collecting dust..hell the damned batteries are dead! Not even the hospital uses it (they call my personal cell phone if I am on call) but I am required to have it anyway and from the sound of this, and similar, law it could be considered a benefit and thus taxable.

If anyone is going to be taxed for work phones/pagers/etc that places of business require their employees to have then it should be the employer not the employee who wasn't given an option.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Incorrect. If you can show that you don't use it for personal calls, then its tax exempt.

That was the old law. From what I read, now it's a fringe benefit and is considered income whether you use it or not. (That's actually one of the three options presented, and this issue is open for "public comment" to the IRS until Sept. 9.)

Where are you getting your information from? The original post seems to say something different.

Read the entire article, not just the little WSJ blurb.

 

[Nik]

That was the old law. From what I read, now it's a fringe benefit and is considered income whether you use it or not. (That's actually one of the three options presented, and this issue is open for "public comment" to the IRS until Sept. 9.)

Where are you getting your information from? The original post seems to say something different.

Read the entire article, not just the little WSJ blurb.

Its behind a wall. Can you post it?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Where are you getting your information from? The original post seems to say something different.

Read the entire article, not just the little WSJ blurb.

Its behind a wall. Can you post it?

HUNT for it, like I had to do.

 

[Nik]

Read the entire article, not just the little WSJ blurb.

Its behind a wall. Can you post it?

HUNT for it, like I had to do.

Umm, no? I'm actually sort of busy.

 

[alan1]

Incorrect. If you can show that you don't use it for personal calls, then its tax exempt.

So now, it's guilty until proven innocent.
You are are an excellent tool.

Guilty? These aren't crimes, genius.

As soon as they call it tax evasion it's investigated/treated as a crime.
You got one thing right though, compared to you I am a genius.

 

[Nik]

So now, it's guilty until proven innocent.
You are are an excellent tool.

Guilty? These aren't crimes, genius.

As soon as they call it tax evasion it's investigated/treated as a crime.
You got one thing right though, compared to you I am a genius.

In which case you are treated as innocent until proven guilty. However showing your tax exempt status isn't a crime.

Oh, and you fail at recognizing sarcasm.

 

[FactFinder]

We already pay federal taxes on cell phone use. Check the bill. I thought there was some law against double taxation. What? Is calling the tax a different name justification?

Surely the House of Manipulators won't stand for such abuse on people's rights.