Nick Furious

1:30 AM. Hotel lobby bar.

My thinking is that the existence of 9.9's does not impact the value of 9.8's because of the vast differences in quantity. I think the ratio of 160 to 1 puts them into different categories. If it were something like a 10 to 1 or 20 to 1 ratio, (either because of more 9.9's or less 9.8's) I could see where either grade would likely negatively impact the value of the other.

First time on the internet?

Gonna have to disagree on this one. I found this one amusing and well played.

Fair enough. But to ask what changes with the reporting, I would compare it to a speeding analogy. If the speed limit is 60, typically you can keep it under 65 and feel confident that you are not who the police officer is looking to ticket. You are still breaking the law and may still get a ticket, but under normal circumstances it is acceptable to go 61-64 mph in a 60 zone and in fact may be the only way to stay consistent with the flow of traffic. The new reporting law is more of "we have video evidence that you were on the highway. Either pay this fine for speeding or argue that you were not speeding, and risk being audited for further investigation". That's what changes with the $600 reporting threshold change. The burden of proof of innocence trickles down to folks who likely won't have the resources or courage to argue their innocence rather than pay the fine.

It's all good. History is full of debates between the letter of the law and the intent of the law. The $20k threshold showed that the intent of the law was different than the letter of the law. The reduction to $600 indicated a change in intent that would bring us closer to the letter of the law. The delays in implementation indicates a reconsideration of that change. It's fair game for debate.

If I was saying that, you wouldn't be asking if I was saying that. Anyone can be audited. But the higher threshold intentionally gives the tax filer the option of deciding for themselves if they need to address the revenues and expenses at the time of filing. The lower reporting requirement makes it mandatory to address all revenues over $600 at the time of filing or pay taxes on those revenues as if they are pure profit. You asked, "if they send the form or not, what does it matter to you on your taxes?" I attempted to answer that question. Did I provide an adequate answer?

There has always been a threshold. Previously it was intentionally set at a high enough amount ($20K?) to let the little fish swim through the net without getting caught up in the need to address small amounts of revenue from selling personal items.

I assume you get that part. It's the rest of it that you are dismissing when you ask why the change in reporting threshold will matter for people. It matters because now they will have to address small amounts of revenue on their tax returns that they didn't previously need to address. It's a lot of extra work and adequately addressing the small revenues with offsetting expenses opens the door to more likelihood of audits.

Here's the part you are missing: Taxable income is based on profit, not revenue. Currently someone selling $6K on Ebay but making no profit after expenses does not have to address it on their tax return. With the new threshold, Ebay will report the $6K in sales to the IRS and the tax filer will need to address it on their tax return whether they made an profit or not. Otherwise the IRS will adjust your income by $6K and send you a bill. Eventually that number will reach $600 according the the legislation that has been delayed as it becomes clear how onerous that will be.

If the threshold were raised to $50k, what do you think would be the purpose behind that? Do you not agree that the current threshold is an intentional buffer zone to allow for small transactions to go unreported?

There's plenty of law enforcement in Oregon. Just try stopping a drug addict from taking a dump on your front lawn. Or try stopping a dude from following your daughter into the locker room. See how many charges get filed against you.

That's absurd. The book is the same grade with or without the submitter's knowledge of restoration. Did the seller note restoration on the Ebay listings? Care to name the seller? Others here may have history with them.

good catch. You could turn the chart upside down and it would still provide the same information, just with comic books at the bottom. Chart only says that women review way more than men do overall...but in 4 categories men review more than women. Comic books and graphic novels being 2 of those 4. No champagne popping is warranted.

Might have had as much to do with transportation costs and maximizing retail display slots as it had to do with saving on paper and ink.