FairTax.Org HR25

WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG ^ | Last Week | Thomas Leser

[Iwo Jima]

In your interpretation would real estate be taxed as a "new" good at least once after the NRST is passed? With or without a house or other improvements? What if the land is bought as raw acreage, paying the tax, then a house is built, and the property sold? Is the value of the land taxed again?

[kevkrom]

This doesn't say only those who are required to file reports, this say "In all disputes concerning taxes imposed". Geez.

You can make it say whatever you want when you take it out of context. Everything in Chapter 5 relates to those who are required to collect and remit taxes. The requirement for record-keeping is laid out in section 509, and it says nothing about receipt-keeping by individuals.

[kevkrom]

In your interpretation would real estate be taxed as a "new" good at least once after the NRST is passed? With or without a house or other improvements? What if the land is bought as raw acreage, paying the tax, then a house is built, and the property sold? Is the value of the land taxed again?

You must have misread me... the land is not taxable by the NRST. Exisiting structures will not be taxable. New structures would be taxable on retail sale. Improvements to existing structures (used for end-consumption, i.e., not business structures) would be taxable.

[Bigun]

`SEC. 103. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF TAX.

`(a) Liability for Collection and Remittance of the Tax- Except as provided otherwise by this section, any tax imposed by this subtitle shall be collected and remitted by the seller of taxable property or services (including financial intermediation services).

`(b) Tax to Be Remitted by Purchaser in Certain Circumstances-

`(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of taxable property or services purchased outside of the United States and imported into the United States for use or consumption in the United States, the purchaser shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.

`(2) CERTAIN WAGES OR SALARY- In the case of wages or salary paid by a taxable employer which are taxable services, the employer shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.

`(c) Conversion of Business or Export Property or Services- Property or services purchased for a business purpose in a trade or business or for export (sold untaxed pursuant to section 102(a)) that is subsequently converted to personal use shall be deemed purchased at the time of conversion and shall be subject to the tax imposed by section 101 at the fair market value of the converted property as of the date of conversion. The tax shall be due as if the property had been sold at the fair market value during the month of conversion. The person using or consuming the converted property is liable for and shall remit the tax.

`(d) Seller Relieved of Liability in Certain Cases- In the case of any taxable property or service which is sold untaxed pursuant to section 102(a), the seller shall be relieved of the duty to collect and remit the tax imposed under section 101 on such purchase if the seller--

`(1) received in good faith, and retains on file for the period set forth in section 509, a copy of a registration certificate from the purchaser, and

`(2) did not, at the time of sale, have reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was not registered pursuant to section 502.

`(e) Purchaser Liable to Collect and Remit in Certain Cases- In the case of any taxable property or service which is sold untaxed pursuant to section 102, if the seller is relieved by reason of subsection (d) of the duty to collect and remit the tax imposed by section 101, then the duty to pay any tax due shall rest with the purchaser.

`(f) Barter Transactions- If gross payment for taxable property or services is made in other than money, then the person responsible for collecting and remitting the tax shall remit the tax to the sales tax administering authority in money as if gross payment had been made in money at the tax inclusive fair market value of the taxable property or services purchased.

`(g) Intercompany Sales- Firms that make purchases from affiliated firms that are untaxed pursuant to section 102, or make sales to affiliated firms that are untaxed pursuant to section 102, shall not need to comply with the requirements of subsection (d) (relating to certificates) for said purchases or sales to remain untaxed.

[CSM]

"They would be between a rock and a hard place trying to avoid legal jeopardy and financial ruin. And they would put pressure on Congress to fix things (we all know how that would go - Congress only seems to "fix" problems by increasing its power and control over us)."

I don't understand how they would face financial ruin. Are you referencing them competing with the black market? If so, then you confused my point. You admit that the manufacturers are not breaking the law because their sale is sold to liscensed retailers. Therefore, the liscensed retailer will be selling the product to the final customer and they will be collecting/remitting the tax.

Remember, if the purchaser from the manufacturer is not liscensed to make business purchases, then the tax would be collected. So, how does the new, untaxed goods, get into the black market?

Previously, you claimed that the black market would grow to such proportion as to bankrupt the economy. How would this growth occur if the manufacturers follow the law and sell to the businesses with liscenses?

"No one -- or very few -- would never submit any tax. Just like now very few people or businesses fail to file a tax return. They just wouldn't necessarily report every transaction that they maybe should have. Maybe it's due to Enron-like cooking the books. Maybe it's just a genuine but different interpretation of the law. You'd have to still have accountants to do your reports."

That isn't the point. Previously you claimed the black market would explode and destroy the economy. It has been pointed out that the legislation currently being discussed accounts for the same rate of avoidance that we see today. Yet you say a major problem with it is that the avoidance would expand exponentially. Now in this post you say it would be "just like now" and they just wouldn't necessarily report every transaction....

Where does your exponential growth of tax avoidance come from?

[Gilbo_3]

could a car dealer drive a car around the block and sell it as used?

Sure they coould but Why would they? At that point they would render themselves as the end purchaser of the NEW car and be the one responsible for the tax...

[Gilbo_3]

They'll have a hard time explaining why they've been screaming for "the RICH" to pay their fair share - when this plan assures that they finally do, without all the loopholes they've built in for themselves in the present system

All the congree-types who pass these bills obviously know BEFORHAND where all the 'gray areas' and loopholes are embedded. THAT is why they want the rich to pay their fair share, at least until they find each individual loophole, then its time to write a new law...

[Always Right]

You can make it say whatever you want when you take it out of context. Everything in Chapter 5 relates to those who are required to collect and remit taxes. The requirement for record-keeping is laid out in section 509, and it says nothing about receipt-keeping by individuals.

I written my share of government documents and standards and understand document and legal structure quite well. Chapter 5 is titled `CHAPTER 5--OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS". Section 509 is its own stand alone section. It is not a subsection of another section, but stands alone. There is no 'context'. There is nothing in Chapter 5 that says these provisions only apply to business who are required to collect and remit. I would bet you $100,000 if you really think otherwise.

[dljordan]

"Today a SWAT team would be sent in, his cabin burned, and he would shoot himself in the back. The papers would applaud the death of the "White Separatist".

Don't forget to shoot any pets and children in the immediate vicinity, also any "innocent bystanders". Don't want too many loose ends.

[Always Right]

The government can audit and request paperwork from anyone who they think is liable for the tax. I really don't see how anyone can say otherwise.

SEC. 506. BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PRODUCTION.

`In all disputes concerning taxes imposed by this subtitle, the person engaged in a dispute with the sales tax administering authority or the Secretary, as the case may be, shall have the burden of production of documents and records but the sales tax administering authority or the Secretary shall have the burden of persuasion.

You really have no arguement unless you can dispute what this paragraph clearly says, but you can't.

[Iwo Jima]

Where does your exponential growth of tax avoidance come from?

The 30% tax of transactions for "new" or "untaxed" items (however that is defined). That's a tremendous incentive to try to structure transactions so that they seem to be outside the tax or to just flat out buy and sell on the black market without any regard to the tax. Those who try to play by the rules are at a serious disadvantage when the rules make no since, such as when you have made a used item more valuable than a new one.

[Principled]

`(b) Examinations and Audits- The sales tax administering authority has the authority to conduct at a reasonable time and place examinations and audits of persons who are or may be liable to collect and remit tax imposed by this subtitle and to examine the books, papers, records, or other data of such persons which may be relevant or material to the determination of tax due.

This is for those who collect and remit - retailers. There is nothing indicating individuals need receipts.

[Always Right]

The 30% tax of transactions for "new" or "untaxed" items (however that is defined). That's a tremendous incentive to try to structure transactions so that they seem to be outside the tax or to just flat out buy and sell on the black market without any regard to the tax.

All that has to happen is everyone start a business and start to claim all their expenses as business related. In a free country where everyone is free to start any business they want, why wouldn't they. No one says a business has to be profitable. I could drive a Mack Truck through that loophole, or atleast an SUV for my wife.

[ancient_geezer]

How often will it happen that an individual does not purchase the necessities of life?

According to Consumer Expenditure Survey data, somewhere around next to none.

 

http://bls.gov/cex/2001/Standard/income.pdf

Table 2. Income before taxes:
Average annual expenditures and characteristics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2001

Complete reporting of income a/

Item	Total complete reporting	Less than $5,000	$5,000 to $9,999	$10,000 to $14,999	$15,000 to $19,999	$20,000 to $29,999	$30,000 to $39,999	$40,000 to $59,999	$50,000 to $69,999	$70,000 and over
Households (thousands)	88,735	4,100	6,829	8,099	7,014	12,075	10,508	8,737	12,480	18,892
Income before taxes b/	$47,507	$1,666	$7,675	$12,380	$17,282	$24,494	$34,456	$44,418	$58,943	$113,978
Income after taxes b/	$44,587	$1,528	$7,678	$12,388	$17,086	$23,924	$33,047	$42,362	$55,572	$104,685
Average annual expenditures	$41,395	$20,517	$16,625	$20,642	$25,028	$28,623	$35,430	$40,900	$50,136	$76,124
Estimated market value of owned home	$97,681	$41,007	$49,326	$53,907	$58,377	$61,612	$72,720	$79,331	$115,123	$194,720

[Principled]

You don't know much about the bill yet - that's fine. You'd do well to take a look at it.

[CSM]

OK then. Where does the black market seller get the products to sell? (starting the circle all over again)

Keep in mind that we already established:
1) The manufactures selling the product to liscensed businesses would be within the law, therfore outside of the black market.
2) The liscensed business buying the product would not risk that liscence to participate fully in the black market.
3) The rate of avoidence by each of these party would be approximately the same rate that we see today.

[Always Right]

This is for those who collect and remit - retailers. There is nothing indicating individuals need receipts.

But anyone who is liable is responsible for remitting tax. If the new and improved government tax collection agency (Not the IRS though!) decides they think you are liable for tax and did not rimit it, you can bet you sweet cheeks that they are gonna audit you. Hey you, driving that new foreign car, let me see your sales receipt. That's all they need to say, and you have the burden to produce it. I am not sure what fantasy land you are living on if you somehow believe individuals can not and will not be audited. All they have to do is think you 'may be liable to collect and remit' and they can audit you. Go through ALL your records, make sure you paid taxes on all the goods and services your used or provided. There is absolutely nothing to stop them.

[Your Nightmare]

If the new and improved government tax collection agency (Not the IRS though!)

It's the Sales Tax Bureau. The new IRS would be the STB.

[kevkrom]

I written my share of government documents and standards and understand document and legal structure quite well.

Could have fooled me. In order for the provisions of this section to be invoked, there has to be some grounds for a dispute. The only way there can be a dispute is if the entity is liable for oversight in the first place. The only entities liable for oversight are those required to file reports -- retail sellers and certain special cases. Not everyday people buying retail goods and services.

[Principled]

All that has to happen is everyone start a business and start to claim all their expenses as business related.

Yeah! LOL - I'll send you cards in jail. THe law don't like defrauders - especially tax frauds.