It was included in the health law because it would have raised about $17 billion in previously uncollected taxes. A bipartisan collection of business groups have opposed the provision, arguing that it would bury them in paperwork.

Alternatively, small businesses, you could have just paid the farking taxes you owe. I'm just saying, it's really hard to side with you whining about extra paperwork when you're dodging the tax man.

Fix New, No Old!

Nabb1: The IRS relies on people self-reporting their own income. Me reporting someone else's income, when that person is supposed to be reporting his own income, is not self-reporting. It strikes me as a situation where the cure is worse than the disease. It certainly doesn't strike me as practical.

Yes, just like the W-2s they fill out for employees, the 1099s they fill out for contractors, etc. All of that is payor-reported, so that payee-reporting is noted. I'm willing to bet that most small businesses already fill out twice as many of those as they would have needed to fulfill the provisions of this law.

If businesses with employees didn't send W-2s and 1099s to the IRS, then how many people do *you* think would self-report income?

dletter: Can someone dig a bit deeper into this one for me:

"The provision would have required business owners to file 1099 tax documents on all cumulative purchases from a single vendor that total more than $600 in a year."

So, did businesses before this not file tax documents (and ie not pay taxes) on purchases from a vendor? Or, would they be able to just file once at the end of the quarter/year on the total of all purchases with that vendor over the time frame. Was the law here making them file a 1099 on each individual purchase over $600? I can see that being a paperwork nightmare, especially if you are not in the 21st century on your business paperwork.

Guess I'm just trying to figure out where the extra $17 billion in collected taxes mentioned later on was coming from with this. With this not in place, are businesses now "hiding" more purchases?

The $17 billion figure came out of someone's ass when they were trying to justify passing this stinkburger in the first place.

Code_Archeologist: Nabb1: How so? I shudder to think how many 1099s we'd have to fill out for every vendor from whom we purchase over $600 in goods and/or services.

Business hires contractor and pays $1000 for his work and parts, but files nothing for the expenditure, except that it was maybe a loss or an expense, and pays their bill in cash.

Contractor does not report the $1000. The IRS has no idea what happened to that $1000, which the contractor should have paid taxes on. The 1099 requirement gives the IRS the information to track down contractors and business that are not reporting their full revenues.

That's not true. You've always had to do that with a contractor. The change was really with the purchase of goods. Under Obamacare, if you went to Office Depot and bought $600 worth of office supplies, you'd have to fill out a 1099. Now, not so much.

T-Luv: Fix New, No Old!

"The amendment to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement passed 81-17 with broad bipartisan support."

Troll less, not more!

YoMammaObama: who the hell are the 17 that voted to keep it?

The people with more than half a brain, who realize the government needs bring in tax revenue in order to pay for spending. I guess we'll just borrow some more money from China.

3_Butt_Cheeks: T-Luv: Fix New, No Old!

"The amendment to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement passed 81-17 with broad bipartisan support."

Troll less, not more!

How was that trolling?

Nabb1: itsdan: Code_Archeologist: Business hires contractor and pays $1000 for his work and parts, but files nothing for the expenditure, except that it was maybe a loss or an expense, and pays their bill in cash.

Contractor does not report the $1000. The IRS has no idea what happened to that $1000, which the contractor should have paid taxes on. The 1099 requirement gives the IRS the information to track down contractors and business that are not reporting their full revenues.

Yeah except if the first business doesn't have any backing for the $1000 and they get audited THEY pay the taxes on the $1000. There's no reason not to send a 1099 to a contractor who makes over $600. I think the issue here is more like if you go buy $1000 computer for your business from BestBuy. As a corporation you wouldn't previously send BestBuy a 1099, only non-incorporated entities like contractors or sole-proprietors.

Exactly. I don't have a problem with filling out a 1099 for the guy that does my IT work, but I don't want to send one to Sam's for all the paper towels and coffee we bought for the kitchen. Seems fairly pointless, and I suspect Sam's is reporting its income.

Frankly, I don't care if Sam's is reporting or not. That's between them and the IRS.

How Does That Taste: YoMammaObama: who the hell are the 17 that voted to keep it?

The people with more than half a brain, who realize the government needs bring in tax revenue in order to pay for spending. I guess we'll just borrow some more money from China.

You're a retard.

An example of the craziness of this would be a medium sized trucking company. They would have to track the individual gas spending at each and every gas station that their truckers use to fill up, find out who owns them, combine the ones where a single owner owns more than one of them, and send all of the owners a 1099 for the gas that was bought.

Net new taxes paid: $0.
Cost of doing this: A lot.

If you are a business owner and you take clients out to eat at a restaurant and over the year you spend more than $600 there - you have to send them a 1099. Again, not an extra nickel of taxes will be collected.

Businesses will have to keep track of their suppliers and send 1099s to pretty much all of their vendors. The IRS will also have to come up with a way to handle the deluge of millions/billions of new 1099s coming in, and it would probably cost the IRS more money to handle them than they'll actually bring in from it. Most 'Under the table' transactions are pretty small.

When Congress and the President agree that it's too much paperwork, you better believe it's too much paperwork.

Meh, by the time it is fully enacted, everyone will have a waiver anyways.

Cat Food Sandwiches: When Congress and the President agree that it's too much paperwork, you better believe it's too much paperwork.

Well maybe the Republicans shouldn't have added it to the bill in the first place!

Code_Archeologist: Scerpes: That's not true. You've always had to do that with a contractor.

I know, I was trying to give an example of how the 1099 prevents tax evasion.

Ah...then my apologies.

Wasn't the 1099 reporting provision accidentally left in the bill or an oversight? I remember hearing that, but don't remember where from.

So Long Dental Plan: Cat Food Sandwiches: When Congress and the President agree that it's too much paperwork, you better believe it's too much paperwork.

Well maybe the Republicans shouldn't have added it to the bill in the first place!

Really? If true, that would be a big facepalm. You have a ciatation for that?

Code_Archeologist: Nabb1: How so? I shudder to think how many 1099s we'd have to fill out for every vendor from whom we purchase over $600 in goods and/or services.

Business hires contractor and pays $1000 for his work and parts, but files nothing for the expenditure, except that it was maybe a loss or an expense, and pays their bill in cash.

Contractor does not report the $1000. The IRS has no idea what happened to that $1000, which the contractor should have paid taxes on. The 1099 requirement gives the IRS the information to track down contractors and business that are not reporting their full revenues.

But it's the contractor who's committing a crime. The law made businesses responsible for enforcement. That's what we pay the IRS for!

/ speaking as a business owner who reports his income and files taxes properly
// it's already a nightmare, don't make me do more paperwork so you can figure out if SOMEONE ELSE isn't playing by the rules!

Success! Now we can start hearing about how the Healthcare Reform is gonna cost us more money (because we tore up the part that would help us recoup the costs)!

sprawl15: Wasn't the 1099 reporting provision accidentally left in the bill or an oversight? I remember hearing that, but don't remember where from.

I think it was one of the things they missed when Pelosi said they had to pass it to find out what was in it.

sprawl15: Wasn't the 1099 reporting provision accidentally left in the bill or an oversight? I remember hearing that, but don't remember where from.

We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.

GoodyearPimp: Success! Now we can start hearing about how the Healthcare Reform is gonna cost us more money (because we tore up the part that would help us recoup the costs)!

Yeah...because this portion was going to save little money while causing a huge burden to businesses.

From what I read the 1099 provision looks to be added from the folks on the Democratic side of the aslie:



A Democratic aide for the Senate Finance Committee, which authored the changes, defended the move.

"Information reporting improves tax compliance without raising taxes on small businesses," the aide said. "Health care reform includes more than $35 billion in tax cuts for small businesses ... indicating that during these tough economic times, Congress is delivering the tax breaks small businesses need to thrive." (new window)

Well Teabaggers, which is this...

A loss for reducing revenue at this critical time?

-or-

A win for small businesses who now get to avoid some paperwork?

Vodka Zombie: Nadie_AZ: HeadLever: Meh, by the time it is fully enacted, everyone will have a waiver anyways.

*sigh*

I just ...

/walks away

Yeah.

/sits down and opens a beer

Yeah, that was a little trolltastic. But look on the bright side, you are enjoing a beer, and I am not.

:(

HCR, as it stands in this disappointing failure of a form, will likely turn out to be a two year boondoggle and epic waste of time and resources. When it eventually makes it to the SCOTUS I suspect it will be ruled as it was earlier...Unconstitutional.

My crystal ball isn't always right of course, but the writing may be on the wall here. Or as was stated earlier...we'll all just get waivers so we don't have to comply with it.

itsdan: cfreak: // it's already a nightmare, don't make me do more paperwork so you can figure out if SOMEONE ELSE isn't playing by the rules!

To be fair the alternative for enforcement would be to ramp up random audits.

Audit all you want. It's not my responsibility to make sure someone else is paying their taxes.

Scerpes: I think it was one of the things they missed when Pelosi said they had to pass it to find out what was in it.

Congresspeople are not allowed to read bills before they are voted upon? The various health care bills were making active rounds for months, and have been kicked around in one form or another for years. How much time do people need to read the bills?

3_Butt_Cheeks: HCR, as it stands in this disappointing failure of a form, will likely turn out to be a two year boondoggle and epic waste of time and resources. When it eventually makes it to the SCOTUS I suspect it will be ruled as it was earlier...Unconstitutional.

My crystal ball isn't always right of course, but the writing may be on the wall here. Or as was stated earlier...we'll all just get waivers so we don't have to comply with it.

You only get the waiver if you belong to a union. Or, heavily contributed to the Obama for Prez campaign.