Freelancers to issue Apple a 1099 form if purchasing a Mac!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by GroundLoop, May 6, 2010.

  1. GroundLoop macrumors 68000

    GroundLoop

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    #1
    Don't want to make this political....more of a heads-up since there are many freelancers on these forums...

    If you make purchases of $600 or more from any company...you will need to issue them a 1099 to document those purchases.

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/?hpt=C2

    Tax law really is getting crazy...

    Hickman

    ps - mod feel free to move this if it does get too political in here...
     
  2. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #2
    Well since corporations are people too, I don't see what the big deal is :p
     
  3. GroundLoop thread starter macrumors 68000

    GroundLoop

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    #3
    Could you imagine the extra overhead though...issuing 1099s to...

    Apple
    Staples
    Costco
    Every restaurant that you hold a business meeting


    Before you could just write it off as a business expense and keep the receipts in case of an audit.

    Now you need to collect a ton of info on these companies and issue tax documents.

    It is nuts.

    Hickman
     
  4. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #4
    If there's one thing governments are good at, it's generating more paperwork than can ever be useful.
     
  5. velocityg4 macrumors 68040

    velocityg4

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Georgia
    #5
    How about the overhead on their end. Just think of all the 1099's Dell, Amazon &c will be filling out for every business that has made over $600 in purchases during the tax year. Plus the utter confusion. Take Amazon for example, do you send the 1099 request to just Amazon or the individual sellers selling through Amazon? If through each individual seller then you must scrutinize every receipt to find the party to request a 1099 from.

    On a positive note this will make for great job security for accountants. Their wages will also go through the roof as the demand for accountants will quickly exhaust the supply. This will probably lure many out of retirement too.
     
  6. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #6
    Sonova--!!! This is gonna break the backs of a lot of small businesses, most of which have a problem with short staff. (Hire taller staff. *rim shot drum roll*) This is going to add hundreds of hours to my workload and cut into my MR time.:mad: **** Big Gub'ment.
     
  7. QuantumLo0p macrumors 6502a

    QuantumLo0p

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #7
    This is precisely why a flat tax could be so much better than our current system. I know our system is enormously complex but even a flatter tax than what we have now would be a huge improvement.

    Just think, rather than hiring 16,000 more IRS workers we cut back on them, reduce government, simplify the tax code, increase compliance and save taxpayers enormous amounts of money that is would have been wasted on pure overhead.
     
  8. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #8
    Flat tax would do nothing in this issue. You can not flat tax revenue. You can only flat tax profits. Business expenses are reduce the amount of profit a company makes.
     
  9. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #9
    Better way would be to take away the taxing authority of every town, village, county, and city. If only the Feds and the States had taxing rights, then there would be just over 50 tax codes for any business to deal with, instead of the current thousands and thousands.

    Canada has a Federal VAT, and then the provinces can tack on a Provincial sales tax - or combine the their PST into the GST. Means that company that sells across the country has to deal with a dozen tax codes as most. Opening up a single branch plant in one state in the USA might mean dealing with an additional 4 tax codes for just one location (County, City, State, Federal).

    Regarding the 1099. Its a pain, and the government is going to drown in pieces of paper. But if you use a computerized bookkeeping system it shouldn't pose any problems for freelancers.

    All you have to do is enter a vendor's complete info just once (probably from the receipt), and at the end of the year print out a report. I can see the bookkeeping software people adding a report format that meets IRS guidelines.

    The big stores are ones who are going to have to staff the phone lines at tax time to deal with businesses calling to get the last minute info.

    I would have thought that if the IRS had spent half the money and used that to hire more auditors, and then just increased the the number of returns it reviews the pay back would have been greater. But, oh well.....
     
  10. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #10
    But it covers purchases only over $600 dollars....

    And audits are not as common as you think...
     
  11. GroundLoop thread starter macrumors 68000

    GroundLoop

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    #11
    I foresee them becoming quite a bit more common. If it was single purchases it would be much more bearable, but it is $600 in total purchases during the tax year. So you need to monitor every purchase with every company. This isn't so bad for big companies, but small businesses are going to drown in the paperwork.

    I didn't dive too deep, but I wonder how it works is you buy more than $200 of goods/services from three companies with the same parent corporation. I suppose it just goes by tax IDs and not company names.

    This is just way too sticky.

    Hickman
     
  12. mags631 Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #12
    I think this is too onerous. However, can't this be relatively easily tracked in something like QuickBooks?
     
  13. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #13
    This could be a pain. I'll have to remember if I'm debating some big purchases around that time, to make them before 2012 to forestall the extra hassle.
     
  14. JLatte macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego
    #14
    The small businesses are really going to have to be careful to keep track of all their purchases.
     
  15. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #15
    Doesn't really concern me, as I'm not in the US - but I agree with your thinking. I have a different bookkeeping package than QuickBooks.... and I know it could kick out all the reports I would need for this. If small business people are keeping the records they should be keeping, then this requirement is a small extra burden. I agree that it is an extra burden that doesn't seem necessary at all, but it should not too difficult to work with.... if the business records are as organized as they should be.
     
  16. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #16

    Every four years I run for president on the "common sense" party. One of my proposals is to run the government on what I call the "restaurant tax". What we's do is simply divide the total bill by the number of people. So, let's say the government spends $3T and there are 250M people and you are the head of a household of four. Your share is about $48,000. You simply write a $48,000 check and mail it off. In the restaurant we don't say "how much money did you make last year" no, we just split the check. If you don't like the bill go some place where the bill is less.

    Also we can prevent crime only if we lock up the criminals BEFORE that commit the crime. catching the guy after the fact does not un-do a shooting.

    My health care reform ideas was already done. I said the only way to make sure everyone is insured is to pass a law saying that everyone must have insurance. I'd go one more step and stay that if you can't pay and did not buy the insurance you are simply left to die. No free rides.

    That said, I've yet to get a vote.
     
  17. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #17
    I am just going to assume you are joking in your response.

    But lets assume you are not for a seconded. What about the families that do not make 48k a year. That is more than a lot of entire family earn in a year.
     
  18. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #18
    Just happy he hasn't won yet :eek:
     
  19. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #19
    i predict that a whole lot of 1099 forms aren't going to be file....actually a whole lot of 1099 forms aren't filed currently, but that's a different story
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    If this was implemented there would be a riot in DC over this.
     
  21. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #21
    This new law is pretty crazy and really lacks any point under current tax structure. Why does the Apple, for instance, need a 1099 if a freelancer makes a purchase there? Its not like the government could ever review all of those 1099's in an audit and randomly sampling from 200,000 1099's isn't going to be too cost effective either. There isn't much incentive for a large business like Apple to underreport sales or revenue; when it comes to revenue, investors tend to like larger numbers, not smaller ones.

    To me, this just further solidifies my belief that our lawmakers don't read or don't understand most of what they pass. Either that or they're already starting to law the groundwork for a VAT, which is probably fairly likely as well.

    The good news is that, as someone entering the accounting profession, many smaller business will want someone to prepare these 1099s for them, which means more income for those who choose to work with smaller clients.

    Not currently, though Quickbooks does track purchases by vendor, you'd have to manually do the 1099s currently. 1099s have never been used to track purchases of goods; they're currently used for certain income other than wages and salary. This is a fairly significant change.

    Quickbooks would have to been changed to produce the 1099s automatically (which probably wouldn't be too difficult), but it likely could do it. Its not really a small business that would have the larger problem; midsize and larger companies with a large number of suppliers and purchases greater than $600 will be the ones issuing the brunt of 1099s. Though this could increase a small businesses 1099s from 40-50 to 200-300 depending on how many vendors they use.
     
  22. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #22
    The key in this new law is reporting of unearned income.. and based on the Congress this is a loophole that needs to be closed. Not a problem for larger companies. I have gotten 1099's for "prizes" I have won at work.

    The issue is dealing with small businesses that try to operate under the "radar" of IRS rules. Even under the new rules it is possible for a small business to take a $1300 purchase and break it up in a way to skirt the $600 rule.

    More the reason for the US to look at a VAT tax IMHO...

    Many of us IMHO play it clean with the likes of Turbo Tax each year... and too many more play the "game" to get more back....

    Do we want to end up like Greece? :eek:
     
  23. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #23
    Plenty of unearned income is already reported via variants of the basic 1099. The new law has nothing to do with reporting unearned income; its about reporting purchases of goods made by companies. A sale of goods isn't unearned income, its sale (ie revenue) and in most cases already shows up on line 1a of a corporation's IRS form 1120. This seems to be the one of the first steps needed to implement a VAT.

    Source? CNN's analysis says that if you purchase more than $600 total from a company in a tax year you will have to issue that company a 1099. This involves a large amount of work on the part of a company and/or its accountants. Admittedly, this is CNN's analysis, but if you've got other information about breaking this up to avoid the $600 rule without doing something crazy like setting up separate companies to make the purchases, I'd love to read it.

    I don't think setting up a VAT is the solution, especially in a down economy. Its very regressive and certainly doesn't encourage consumer spending since it gives the illusion of an increased price level (which usually would lead to decreased demand and consumer spending in an economy).

    Oh give me a break; tax avoidance is perfectly legal, tax evasion isn't. Using methods available, like a tax professional, who have more advanced knowledge of the codes enacted by the IRS than TurboTax, in order find and to pay your minimum tax liability isn't playing a "game," its simply obeying the law to the letter. Finding you're minimum tax liability isn't some sort of bad thing, its a good personal financial decision.

    We're not going to end up like Greece because of a few tax cheats, we're going to end up like Greece because of incompetent leaders who refuse to raise taxes for all using well thought out tax policy measures and refuse to decrease the shocking amount of government spending (especially on nonsensical wars). Unlike Greece, our tax policies are already fairly well enforced (even if I disagree with some of them; see numerous types of estate taxation).


    Here is a wonderful summary from a tax attorney regarding these new requirements.
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    Quite, this seems to be ridiculous.

    And they also don't seem to be able to get big legislation through, I mean lets face it Obama and Bush's governments didn't/haven't really make that many good changes.

    Things like the US healthcare bill which isn't that much of a step forward make "classic" British compromises like our introduction of civil partnerships (with the same rights as marriage) look incredibly ballsy by comparison.
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    Wouldn't that be a step forward for the US?
     

Share This Page