Avernus Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 http://www.thestreet.com/story/11073044/1/...repeal-act.html WASHINGTON (TheStreet) -- Small businesses will soon be free of the onerous 1099-reporting mandate expanded in last year's health care reform legislation. The U.S. Senate passed The Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act, H.R. 4, by a vote of 87-12 on Tuesday. The bill, now been passed by House and Senate, will go to President Barack Obama to be signed. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill in March. The bill repeals Section 9006 of last year's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in which business owners, starting next year, were going to be required to use 1099 IRS tax forms to report all transactions greater than $600 each year. It also repeals a requirement passed in the small-business lending bill in which people getting rental income must distribute and file 1099s on payments made in excess of $600 annually, according to the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. "The universally reviled 1099 provision is almost gone, and with good reason," council President and CEO Karen Kerrigan says. "Small-business owners are incensed that they would be overwhelmed by mind-numbing paperwork when they are already overburdened by government regulation and compliance costs. The provision made absolutely no sense, and small-business owners are pleased that most members of Congress see it their way." Obama had called for the measure's repeal during his State of the Union address in January. "Small businesses are the engine of our economy and eliminating the 1099 reporting requirement is the right thing to do," according to a White House statement issued Tuesday. "As we move forward, we look forward to improving the tax credit policy in this legislation to ensure we protect small businesses and middle-class families." The original thread on this was closed by moderators, this is a good sign for the future of small businesses and thank god there won't have to be any mandatory 1099 reporting for purchases over $600 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Good move . . .this was a silly provision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 Good move . . .this was a silly provision. exactly, but having said that it angers me that this was even considered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 exactly, but having said that it angers me that this was even considered Why was it ever considered a good idea in the first place? what was the logic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 Why was it ever considered a good idea in the first place? what was the logic? so that anything considered a "major purchase" could be traced... the gold/silver precious metals community feared this would be a way for big brother to keep track of what you have in case there is another confiscation event (which won't happen in todays era).....this is where I first heard about it... the government just wants to have more records of what we're purchasing.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) so that anything considered a "major purchase" could be traced... the gold/silver precious metals community feared this would be a way for big brother to keep track of what you have in case there is another confiscation event (which won't happen in todays era).....this is where I first heard about it... the government just wants to have more records of what we're purchasing.. It was actually primarily considered to be helpful in the fight against tax evasion. I retain some suspicion that the hugh hoo-hah made about it was made by people who knew EXACTLY what it meant - and why they should oppose it. Sure, it was certainly onerous and really dug it's own grave by the low threshold enabling companies to gripe about it but the main driver was tax evasion. A 2008 study indicated that all tax evasion costs the Treasury around $400 billion per year. If that could be eliminated, the deficit and debt problems could be halved. Edited April 11, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Sure, it was certainly onerous and really dug it's own grave by the low threshold enabling companies to gripe about it but the main driver was tax evasion. A 2008 study indicated that all tax evasion costs the Treasury around $400 billion per year. If that could be eliminated, the deficit and debt problems could be halved. Come on big bear, we all know that companies are always playing fare and gladly pay what they should in taxes and compensation to their employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 It was actually primarily considered to be helpful in the fight against tax evasion. I retain some suspicion that the hugh hoo-hah made about it was made by people who knew EXACTLY what it meant - and why they should oppose it. Sure, it was certainly onerous and really dug it's own grave by the low threshold enabling companies to gripe about it but the main driver was tax evasion. A 2008 study indicated that all tax evasion costs the Treasury around $400 billion per year. If that could be eliminated, the deficit and debt problems could be halved. very good info here, my whole take is that there has to be a simpler system that eliminates tax evasion or at least minimizes it without requiring all the paperwork that would be involved in the 1099 process... I'm all about minimizing tax evasion considering the number is around 400B annually...this has to be fixed, it just has to be fixed in a different way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 It was actually primarily considered to be helpful in the fight against tax evasion. I retain some suspicion that the hugh hoo-hah made about it was made by people who knew EXACTLY what it meant - and why they should oppose it. Sure, it was certainly onerous and really dug it's own grave by the low threshold enabling companies to gripe about it but the main driver was tax evasion. A 2008 study indicated that all tax evasion costs the Treasury around $400 billion per year. If that could be eliminated, the deficit and debt problems could be halved. Of that $400 Billion I would be interested to know how much of that evasion is by companies, and how much is individuals. While there is no doubt there is probably more $$ in evasion by companies, I'd almost be willing to bet there is a higher percentage of individuals evading taxes than there are companies, because companies are already looked at much closer than individuals. This evasion problem is all the more reason that the tax code needs to be significantly streamlined, either to a flat tax with very limited deductions or to a national sales tax similar to the "Fair Tax". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 It was actually primarily considered to be helpful in the fight against tax evasion. I retain some suspicion that the hugh hoo-hah made about it was made by people who knew EXACTLY what it meant - and why they should oppose it. Sure, it was certainly onerous and really dug it's own grave by the low threshold enabling companies to gripe about it but the main driver was tax evasion. A 2008 study indicated that all tax evasion costs the Treasury around $400 billion per year. If that could be eliminated, the deficit and debt problems could be halved. Throw in the 60 billion in medicare fraud and you're starting to talk about some real coin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Come on big bear, we all know that companies are always playing fare and gladly pay what they should in taxes and compensation to their employees. Of course. No company operating under the American Dream would act otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.