Sounds like the intent was to keep companies from claiming expenditures to "Ghost" health care providers. what health care provider doesn;t have a TAX ID # ? Looks like a lot of fluff over nothing ? My teenaged daughter used to create a lot of drama too when she was in middle school. Thankfully she outgrew it, wonder why these guys didn't ?
"..Despite the inability to overturn the provision, Senate officials said they expected that another vote on repeal would come soon, given the support the idea has in both parties." (out of the article ref'd by OP) I hope another vote will change this new provision. It's not over yet. Lucy
gary, I think you misunderstand. The law is not only for health care expenditures. (Not sure where you got that. The law is part of the massive health care program but it applies to ALL businesses for ALL cumulative expenditures of $600 or more.) Quoting from the referenced article: Every business is required to file a 1099 for EVERY business or individual (that includes YOU) to whom they pay $600 or more in a year for any and all goods and services. That means if you sell coins to a coin dealer for $200 the dealer must keep a record of that payment. If you sell the dealer more coins a couple of months later for $350 he must keep a record of that payment. If you sell him more coins later that year for $100 he must file a 1099 reporting payment to you of $650. The IRS will expect you to report that $650 of income and if you don't you may attract their attention. (It will be YOUR responsibility to prove the entire $650 was not income.) The paperwork and recordkeeping will be onerous and counterproductive but the federal government needs every cent they can get to pay for this massive health care program. It is not the concern of the federal government that businesses and individuals will spend more to comply with the law (in recordkeeping) than the government will raise in additional taxes. That is how the system works.
Yeah, I've been trying to figure out what 1099 reporting sales over $600 has to do with healthcare? Heard the other day the IRS has even said there's no way they could handle that much more paper work. Another effort to squash small business. Too bad that's what people wanted.
It is my understanding it is related to health care because the extra so called increase tax revenue from this requirement was to help pay some of the cost of the health care program. I believe it will be repealed.
If this stupid law doesn't get repealed I'm dumping all of my junk silver before the end of next year.
Yeah i do computer work on the side. i have one client that lets me come in on a per month basis. i am going to have to request getting paid in cash if this doesn't get repealed. it isn't much but it is enough and it helps pay those bills that come in. i just do it here and there as people need someone to look at their computer. yet don't want to get screwed by the guys in some of these computer shops.
See now, this is why such screwy clauses were added to the ProgressoCare legislation in the first place. And because of all of this under-the-table Tom Foolery, the rest of us have to suffer.
Yes because you report every bit of income that you do to the IRS. I checked with him to ensure everything was ok and it is. I don't make enough doing it under the current rules for the IRS to care. It also isn't my full time job. it is something i do extra here and there for people. It isn't affecting you in the least bit.
Is the ' KEY WORD ' here business? I've seen no post on " individual" or " person ". If a private individual pays someone or receives money over $600 would he or she still be liable to file a 1099? And if one doesn't file is the IRS geared up to handle these situations? From the above discussion I think not. Course you still are liable for what, the next seven years??
The question is whether the operative clause "All persons engaged in a trade or business" applies to private individuals. I believe the IRS is still working on guidance. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act SEC. 9006. EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. (do a browser find/search on "SEC. 9006.") (a) In General.--Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 <<NOTE: 26 USC 6041.>> is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections: ``(h) Application to Corporations.--Notwithstanding any regulation prescribed by the Secretary before the date of the enactment of this subsection, for purposes of this section the term `person' includes any corporation that is not an organization exempt from tax under section 501(a). ``(i) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such regulations and other guidance as may be appropriate or necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including rules to prevent duplicative reporting of transactions.''. (b) Payments for Property and Other Gross Proceeds.--Subsection (a) of section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended-- (1) by inserting ``amounts in consideration for property,'' after ``wages,'', (2) by inserting ``gross proceeds,'' after ``emoluments, or other'', and (3) by inserting ``gross proceeds,'' after ``setting forth the amount of such''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2011. Below, 26 U.S.C. Section 6041. New text in Red All persons engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course of such trade or business to another person, of rent, salaries, wages, amounts in consideration for property, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other gross proceeds, fixed or determinable gains, profits, and income (other than payments to which section 6042(a)(1), 6044(a)(1), 6047(e), 6049(a), or 6050N(a) applies, and other than payments with respect to which a statement is required under the authority of section 6042(a)(2), 6044(a)(2), or 6045), of $600 or more in any taxable year, or, in the case of such payments made by the United States, the officers or employees of the United States having information as to such payments and required to make returns in regard thereto by the regulations hereinafter provided for, shall render a true and accurate return to the Secretary, under such regulations and in such form and manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth the amount of such gross proceeds, gains, profits, and income, and the name and address of the recipient of such payment.
Thanks Cheetah Cats, I think. It looks like all bases are covered in the section with" All persons engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course of such trade or business to another person, of rent, salaries, wages, amounts in consideration for property, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other gross proceeds, fixed or determinable gains, profits, and income (other than payments to which section 6042(a)(1), 6044(a)(1), 6047(e), 6049(a), or 6050N(a) applies, and other than payments with respect to which a statement is required under the authority of section 6042(a)(2), 6044(a)(2), or 6045), of $600 or more in any taxable year, or, in the case of such payments made by the United States, the officers or employees of the United States having information as to such payments and required to make returns in regard thereto by the regulations hereinafter provided for, shall render a true and accurate return to the Secretary, under such regulations and in such form and manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth the amount of such gross proceeds, gains, profits, and income, and the name and address of the recipient of such payment. Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/showthread.php?t=143573&pagenumber=#ixzz17F60kyeD I never knew one sentence could be so long.----------------------zeke
