If you don't think you pay enough CA taxes, you will be able to donate soon! (taxi, legally)

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by RosieSD

The U.S. Federal Treasury has accepted "donations" from patriots who want to give part or all of their refund to help lower the national debt.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/.../gift/gift.htm

Nothing new under the sun.

Actually that would be voluntary. And if you didn't do it, you would be taxed on the money by a percentage (which very well could be less than 10%). That is wholly different than losing out on a 100% tax benefit (the first being debt forgiveness) involving double counting if you don't donate it. Even an objective person like you would have to admit, that is not a "voluntary" proposition. C'mon Rosie. You won that award because you were objective and reasonable. What's the intent?

Thus cockamamy plan has no chance but is being propagated by a bunch of Liberal rags. About the only one that made any sense was payroll taxes but that would be complicated.

[DKM]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

Laughable. There is also a section of the code on tax evasion (and that gets into intent...the part you conveniently dodged and of course the voluntary side...but nice selective editing).

I'm thinking you're not an accountant either.

The IRS has already started nipping some of this stuff in the bud. The most recent being pre-paying of property tax, that mind you, they didn't have a problem with before (and was readily encouraged). I suspect they'll be a host of advisories like this where the intent is obvious that it's simply to evade taxes.

Well, you're wrong. Intent doesn't mean anything here. Prepaid property taxes were always allowed as long as they were assessed (imposed) by the year end. State law controls that, usually as a lien is technically imposed. I paid my taxes "due" next April and I can deduct them on 2017's taxes because they were imposed in 2017. Nothing changed, they were just clarifying the law. I couldn't deduct next year's property taxes as they weren't imposed yet. Its there in the code, which is easy enough to search on the web.

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by DKM

Well, you're wrong. Intent doesn't mean anything here. Prepaid property taxes were always allowed as long as they were assessed (imposed) by the year end. State law controls that, usually as a lien is technically imposed. I paid my taxes "due" next April and I can deduct them on 2017's taxes because they were imposed in 2017. Nothing changed, they were just clarifying the law. I couldn't deduct next year's property taxes as they weren't imposed yet. Its there in the code, which is easy enough to search on the web.

For you to say intent doesn't mean anything is indeed laughable. There's plenty of ambiguity on tax law and often time, tax lawyers are reaching to find precedent in previous rulings on tax cases. As stated, you're obviously not an accountant either nor have a crystal ball on how tax courts will rule on what appears like a scam on the surface. If you don't think forgiveness of a debt isn't deemed income and by not showing it as such, isn't tax evasion shows how little you do know.

[shooting4life]

California could always lower our state income and sales tax since democrats have all of the sudden started worrying about how much money is being taken from me.

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

California could always lower our state income and sales tax since democrats have all of the sudden started worrying about how much money is being taken from me.

See post#9

[payutenyodagimas]

donation is not mandatory so I like it


tsk tsk tsk


why not just spend wisely? spend only on what really matters and align govt employee benefits with the private sector.


it used to be that govt employees are paid lower than pvt sector but they get retirement benefits


now govt employees are now paid way above the pvt sector and get more retirement benefits too


you can not raise taxes just to feed the employees..you have to provide services too

[Independentthinking]

For those that are interested, here are two takes on the liklihood of this succeeding. One from my accountant, and one from the research director for the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Do note there is no mention of a precedent proposing a state giving an either/or proposition to taxpayers on how to use the tax money owed (if anyone can show a tax case showing this precedent...which was the point of contention from the start, please supply it)

1) I think trying such will have a tough time of qualifying as a charitable contribution. You can contribute to public entities and take a charitable deduction, but you can't receive anything in return.

In this case, paying off your mandatory and legal tax debt is receiving something in return. I don't see how they can make the tax voluntary which is what it would take to make it a charitable contribution.

2) “It’s really just a mechanism in state law that lets people launder(intent) state income-tax payments and convert them into charitable contributions,” Davis said.

Alas, it would involve a loophole that’s easy to close, he said.

“Under the current rules, it’s workable,’’ he said. “But I don’t see Congress or the IRS letting a state get away with it very long.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...salt-deduction

Congress and the IRS will iron this out. But my suggestion to those relying on a gimmick like this is to think of something else as I believe you will be in for a rude awakening.

[SportyandMisty]

SALT deductions are loopholes that should be closed.

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

SALT deductions are loopholes that should be closed.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I was just giving what the tax professionals have to say on it. I tend to look at the situation based on COL. I'm thinking you might not be as unforgiving on a family that earns in the $50k-$75k range, which is really all that family that is making between the $100k-$150k income in CA is equivalent to. But maybe I'm wrong and you would want them to be taxed more also.

[GSR13]

What people aren't realizing is that this is a golden (pun intended) opportunity to troll the state. If there's no minimum donation, there's nothing stopping people from donating $.01.

Just my two cents