Chile Forum

Thanks the new health care bill, everyone receiving more than $600 needs to be given a 1099 form. In other words, if I go to Walmart and spend more than $600, I need to give them a 1099. If I sell a coin dealer more than $600 worth of coins, he's required to give me a 1099.

I know this sounds far fetched and our baord's doubting Thomas is going to call me out on this. No problem, check out :

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbu ... ax_change/

An all-but-overlooked provision of the health reform law is threatening to swamp U.S. businesses with a flood of new tax paperwork.

Section 9006 of the health care bill -- just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document -- mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.

....

Bring it on bebe.

Can't wait for the system to self-destruct via it's own regs.

Ripsigg wrote:Thanks the new health care bill, everyone receiving more than $600 needs to be given a 1099 form. In other words, if I go to Walmart and spend more than $600, I need to give them a 1099. If I sell a coin dealer more than $600 worth of coins, he's required to give me a 1099.

I know this sounds far fetched and our baord's doubting Thomas is going to call me out on this. No problem, check out :

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbu ... ax_change/

An all-but-overlooked provision of the health reform law is threatening to swamp U.S. businesses with a flood of new tax paperwork.

Section 9006 of the health care bill -- just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document -- mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.

....

Can you spell "kakistocracy"?

Rhymes with "idiocracy."

Yeah, at this rate it won't be long before we have to stamp every receipt with some kind of tax number.

Some pretty influential small-business organizations (eg NFIB, etc) are lobbying hard to get rid of this very important part of your government health care reform. Expect zero action until January, after the elections.

John Hyre

JHyre wrote:Some pretty influential small-business organizations (eg NFIB, etc) are lobbying hard to get rid of this very important part of your government health care reform. Expect zero action until January, after the elections.

John Hyre

Your self-control whilst swimming in a sea of sarcasm never ceases to amaze. Nor does the foolishness of the US government ever fail to discover new depths of idiocy and counterproductive measures.

patagoniax wrote:Your self-control whilst swimming in a sea of sarcasm never ceases to amaze. Nor does the foolishness of the US government ever fail to discover new depths of idiocy and counterproductive measures.

Yeah, otherwise I'd go nuts. Or nutser-er. As to government......who is the poster here who ends his posts with that old Mencken quote: Democracy is the proposition that the people should get what they want, good and hard. Pretty much sums it up....greed (take from others), laziness (let govt do the taking) and naivete (and this will not F up the whole world or have any negative impact on me). The toys change (from Phalanx to Nukes), but the monkey behind it all is the same, unchanging monkey. Too bad nobody reads history anymore.

End of rant. Have a nice day with your penguin friends.

John Hyre, Loves the Penguins from Madagascar

GJJIM wrote:Yeah, at this rate it won't be long before we have to stamp every receipt with some kind of tax number.

That is exactly what I was thinking. It's a gateway to have every single transaction reported to the IRS. It's also a gateway to a VAT.

Best "tax break" in America is a small business.

Ripsigg wrote:

GJJIM wrote:Yeah, at this rate it won't be long before we have to stamp every receipt with some kind of tax number.

That is exactly what I was thinking. It's a gateway to have every single transaction reported to the IRS. It's also a gateway to a VAT.

That's true, but I was also thinking that it's ironic for people living in Chile to complain about tax paperwork when the act of buying a 250 peso empanada gets you a written receipt stamped with the vendor's RUT.

GJJIM wrote:

Ripsigg wrote:

GJJIM wrote:Yeah, at this rate it won't be long before we have to stamp every receipt with some kind of tax number.

That is exactly what I was thinking. It's a gateway to have every single transaction reported to the IRS. It's also a gateway to a VAT.

That's true, but I was also thinking that it's ironic for people living in Chile to complain about tax paperwork when the act of buying a 250 peso empanada gets you a written receipt stamped with the vendor's RUT.

Except the proposed 1099 isn't disposible like the little chits we get here in Chile. A 1099 identifies both buyer and seller/service provider.

The kakistocracy has spoken.

Ripsigg wrote:Thanks the new health care bill, everyone receiving more than $600 needs to be given a 1099 form. In other words, if I go to Walmart and spend more than $600, I need to give them a 1099. If I sell a coin dealer more than $600 worth of coins, he's required to give me a 1099..

Companies will be required to issue 1099 to contractors or individuals who are PAID more than $600.00. Not people who BUY from companies. It is up from the previous amount required for issuing a 1099, but it does not mean if you (a person or a company) SPEND $600 or more at any given store that you have to issue a 1099. According to your understanding of the Article I would be having to sit down and print out 1099's for freaking car payments, pharmacies, electric companies, etc. The law lowers the amount...previously if I was PAID $1000 or more by a company for services rendered, I would have been issued a 1099. I would not have been then, nor under this law, required to issue one for spending money at a store or purchasing stuff.

Anyone else sense that there is some mistaken interpretation of the original post? No fan of gov. but the original post doesn't match the actual part of the bill that was quoted. I may (as usual) be missing something.

Read the article I linked to. One example given is a freelance designer buying a computer from Apple. He would need to give Apple a 1099. In other words, if you spend more than $600 at any one store or other vendor during the course of the year, and are in business, then you will need issue a 1099. I don't know how this can be misinterpreted.

This law/bill expands the reasons for issuing 1099's, it's not about lowering the threshold of reporting. You could say that it simplifies requirements. If you spend more than $600 in a year at any particular business(and you are a business), issue a 1099. It doesn't matter if that $600 goes to Walmart, Joe's Crabshack, or Amazon.com. You will issue them one your tax id and their tax id.

Here is another article that explains it a little more:
http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/tax/ ... -care-bill

Beginning in 2012, under a little discussed mandate of the health care reform legislation, businesses will be required to report all payments in excess of $600 for services or merchandise to the Internal Revenue Service on a Form 1099.
...
Under current law, businesses send Forms 1099 for payments in excess of $600 for rent, interest, dividends, and non-employee services when these payments are made to entities other than corporations. Payments made to a corporation and payments for merchandise are not required to be reported.

In order to file the required 1099, a business would have to get a Taxpayer Information Number (TIN) from the vendor. Under current tax law, one copy of the form is sent to the IRS, and another copy is sent to the person to whom the business made the payments.

The reporting requirement will affect business in two ways, according to The Boston Globe. First, most of a business’s revenue now will be reported to the IRS by the businesses that paid it, so understating large amounts of revenue will be more difficult. Secondly, it will force businesses to identify the recipients of their business expense payments.

“There is no doubt this will be an administrative nightmare for many businesses in the first year or two,” Jamie Downey, partner at Downey & Co. said in The Boston Globe. “Have a large business-related meal at a restaurant, this will need to be reported on a 1099. Spend a week in a hotel in Waco, Texas; you will need to send a 1099.”

Someone compared this to Chile(and other countries with a VAT), it's true that your receipt includes the tax number of the store. It's easy and painless, I am not providing my tax number unless I choose to claim those as expenses. The US is going one step further.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong on this, but I do believe that onus will be on the buyer to document the transaction to the IRS if they are claiming anything on their taxes. The seller is not involved in documenting the sale, but they are being required to provide their information.

The end result is a massive database filled with buyers and sellers and the amount of business being done. It sure is hard to be a tax cheat when the person buying from you is ratting you out.

Ripsigg,

You are correct. Further, there this is viewed as a revenue raiser in that Congress knew some people would not comply with increasingly burdensome regs and would therefore be able fine those people. I'd have to find the language to that effect in the history of the bill, but I believe there was a revenue item from fines to help "offset" other spending. Not just cynical, but openly so.

Welcome to Obamanation. This guy makes Bush look like a libertarian and a genius. That's what you get when you vote for a Hard Left nobody who has never held a real job.

John Hyre, All Hopey Changey

Here ya go ripsigg...
Nasty~evil~bastards want a piece of your Au (and the ensuing records of whachagot)
Sounds like a nice future segue to confiscation?
Lucky for us, we won't ever buy~sell in the Endebted Snakes of AmerLand - but some/many will
Caveat Emptor, eh?

Those already outraged by the president's health care legislation now have a new bone of contention -- a scarcely noticed tack-on provision to the law that puts gold coin buyers and sellers under closer government scrutiny.
The issue is rising to the fore just as gold coin dealers are attracting attention over sales tactics.
Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will amend the Internal Revenue Code to expand the scope of Form 1099. Currently, 1099 forms are used to track and report the miscellaneous income associated with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed individuals.