D.F. wrote:
- quote -

Think about a new bank. They obviously don't need this kind
of business why give them the rest of your business?

--
Frederick E. Jorden http://Tax-Accounting-Payroll.com
7825 Midlothian Tpk - 207 Richmond, VA 23235-5247
EMAIL knowtax[at]bigfoot.com
(804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Rich Carreiro wrote:
- quote -

It's an interpretation of the taxing authority granted to
Congress in Article I, section 8. You may find the Supreme
Court case on your own.

It explains why IRC 691(c) exists as well as why other taxes
are allowed to be deducted under IRC 162, etc.

- quote -

The fact that they AREN'T exempt is exactly my point: The
change will create a class of taxpayers that didn't exist
beforehand.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Well, we do more than just tax returns and payroll. Wow!
The possibilities of not having to be rushed for three
months out of the year and not spend the first 12 work days
of each month running ourselves ragged! I could get a day
off. <VBG
Carol
My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Harlan Lunsford wrote:

- quote -

It's like a rebate. Sounds good, but is a hassle. And when
things actually work, you get a check for 15 Pounds, take it
to your bank and find they want a $15 fee to cash the check.

Credited to one's credit card sounds good tho.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

I've put this one in my "When Pigs Fly" folder since the
first meeting on the subject I attended was more than 10
years ago. Granted, these things must be done delicately,
but until someone is willing to restrict each state's
ability to define taxable wages, piggybacking isn't going
anywhere (unless the Feds are willing to go state-by-state).

Phil Marti
Topeka, KS

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"CLJ1219" <clj1219[at]aol.com78946321> wrote:

- quote -



Moderator: I debated posting this. The thread ends here!

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Ironically, I do not think the tax pro's or enforcement
officials head count would change much!

Many of the IRS personnel would shift over to the various
states revenue agencies, if a majority of our society &
economy were to depended on the life cycle of a SALES/VAT
tax, accurate assessment & collection of these funds would
be just as critical as is social security & incomes taxes
are now.

Many states have very aggressive audit & collection
personnel, so the aggravations felt by business owners might
get worse.

Ignorance, incompetence & greed of unethical business
owners will not go away just because the "IRS" is gone.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

D. Stussy wrote:

- quote -

What makes you say that? Now, a national sales tax or VAT
might be considered a direct tax, and hence requiring a
Constitutional amendment to be non-apportioned, but I can't
find anything in the Constitution against double taxation.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

D. Stussy wrote:

snipped.....

- quote -

double taxation is unconstitutional? where does it say
that? We've been paying tax upon tax for a long time, e.g.
sales taxes on the total price of a bottle or pack which
contains state and federal excise taxes.

- quote -

The UK does it , though not very well with their VAT. Upon
leaving from any major airport in the UK or Republic of
Ireland, one may turn in all his receipts for good bought at
a commercial preparer's kiosk and apply for refund of VAT.
Then, many many weeks later the refund shows up, or is
suppose to show up, on one's credit card.

Actually I never bother.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford
packing with 10,240 miles to go

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

I was speaking strictly as 1040 return preparers. Of coures
you and I do payroll work too. but could we survive (not
that I would have to) on just that? And with no
withholding tax (federal), there would be no 941 form, but
rather a SSA941 form sent to Wilkes BArre, or some lockbox
in Baltimore. Hmmm. what do do about the 940 then? I know,
they could piggyback that one on the suta returns.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford
packing, with 10,240 miles to go

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:

- quote -

Where in the US Constitution is this alleged "(no)
double-taxation" clause?

- quote -

Have you ever travelled outside the US? It's not like
dealing with VAT refunds is some crazy no one's ever dealt
with. And it's not like tourists visiting countries with
VATs are entirely exempt from them, either.

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Right. Remember how tax simplification made returns so much
harder to do.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Whatever is done in the switch to a national sales tax from
an income tax based system, there is one thing to watch out
for:

During the transition, there will be some period of time and
for some amount of funds for every person and/or business
entity where there would be a DOUBLE taxation - an
unconstitutional event. For some people, the amount and/or
period of time may be longer than for others.

Example: Let's suppose that the switch were to take place
on January 1. One gets his last income-tax-subjected
paycheck on December 31. Unless one is in the "unfortunate"
position which requires him to spend his entire paycheck on
that day, some amount of it [or all] will be carried and
taxed as it is spent the next day (or onward).

Although many states have both a sales tax and income tax,
many of them don't seem to have a double-taxation clause in
their constitutions like the federal government does. Nor
do the states generally have BOTH rates as significant
percentages (e.g. over 10%).

There may also be an unconsidered effect on tourism.
Tourists from other countries don't get income taxed because
they generally don't have U.S. sourced income. However,
they will get sales taxed. Trying to work out some sort of
exemption for them would be a nightmare to implement.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Harlan,

Why do you think we tax pros would be out of work? Someone
will still have to prepare the sales tax returns that will
sent in, as well as payroll (I'm quite certain that
eliminating the IRS would not eliminate having to send in
Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes).

Carol
My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Oops! President finds sales tax substitution for income tax
"interesting".

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...dc_1&printer=1

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

William Brenner wrote:

- quote -

(snipped)

that's the worse case scenario? (grin

It of course would mean that "we" tax pros would be
redundant, i.e. out of work. And I would have to join
you, Bill, and retire. Not that that would be a bad idea.

And even though I could retire as early as this afternoon if
I had a mind to, I enjoy having an office and the challenges
and being able to help people. (And the money makes some
really good bottles of usque 'beatha possible, too.)

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"William Brenner" <wjbjr[at]webtv.net> wrote:

- quote -

Checked out the speaker's web page

http://speaker.house.gov/

Doesn't mention any interest in getting rid of the IRS

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

philmarti[at]aol.com (Phil Marti) wrote:

- quote -

While I don't think I like the idea of a massive sales tax
in place of an income tax, there are benefits to (a) moving
the process into the states and/or (b) moving federal focus
away from individual taxpayers.

A system where individuals pay all of their state/federal
taxes to the states based on state rules, which forwards the
money to the federal government, would open up the
possibility of experimentation in tax methods.

The best idea I've heard (I think) would be for the federal
government to tax state income; and the state to collect all
taxes however they want--income tax, sales tax, selling
baked goods, doesn't matter, as long as they collect the
funds they need for themselves and for the federal
government. Individuals have to worry about one less taxing
entity (even though their taxes remain the same) and the
taxing entities that remain are "closer" to them
politically. Compliance becomes somewhat easier because
there are about half the rules that need be followed.

The IRS would still be there, but it would have only 50
taxpayers to deal with.

Jerry

--
It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
http://www.ItIsntMurder.com/

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Mr Moderator: You are forgiven.

I am surprised that the first round of responses contained
no reference to Mr Hastert's assertion that [gulp]:

- quote -

Worse yet, with no tax advisors extant, it would [double
gulp] eliminate the need for this honourable forum.
(Although it could probably continue for a couple of years
to advise inquirers that help is neither available nor
necessary.) (g)

Actually, I believe there is nothing to fear as to whether
this plan will go forward. For the past decade or so -
starting with Mr Gingrich's rule - the House of
Representatives leadership has proposed many harebrained
bills, designed to score political points and/or embarrass
the opposition by forcing them to vote against flag and
motherhood issues. They knew that cooler heads in the Senate
would kill the bills - or that during the Clinton
administration they would be vetoed. With a few notable
exceptions, this has proved to be the case.

It was noted that President Bush has not endorsed this plan.
That would be very difficult for him considering his undying
efforts to make his own tax cut plan permanent.

Bill

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

William Brenner wrote:

- quote -

Yes, indeed this was one the Drudge Report several days ago.
I haven't seen it reported anywhere else but have heard it
discussed on several talk shows.

Also in this session of congress, there has been a bill
introduced in both the house and senate to initiate a sales
tax of 23% inclusive. This is 30% exclusive which is the way
sales tax it calculated today.

Since this has been the election season, several candidates
have come to our county to speak, and all of the republicans
in our state were for the sales tax. One was for the VAT
tax.

Both of these taxes would be very bad taxes, so I certainly
hope that people learn about these proposals and debate them
before they become law. There is quite a push from the
grass roots to do this, but they have many things wrong with
their arguments and lot of them who are for it don't really
understand it.

Sheila

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->