"William Brenner" <wbrenner[at]nospamplease.net> wrote
- quote -



If so, how will the IRS make the tax increase "stick"?



--
Paul Thomas, CPA
paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net

William Brenner wrote:

- quote -

I didn't read that article in the Washington compost, but
did in my local rag.

the nature of the gain would depend on just when the
stamp(s) was/were bought, wouldn't it?

Of course for an individual the gain would most likely be
less than a dollar, given individuals' propensity for day to
day postage purchases.

and for a business, the gain would be offset by a
corresponding ordinary and necessary deduction.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

kamlet[at]panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:

- quote -

I've had them take a full roll of stamps back, as long as I was
exchanging it for a roll of higher value.

Apparently if you have unused lose stamps they will give you 80% of
the face value back.

Stu

Sat, 13 May 2006 13:35:19 -0400 from Bob <bob[at]nospam.com> :
- quote -

Your business is also not required to perform equal services for
people in remote locations, without exception.

The Postal Service is a utility, not a business, regardless of what
the legislation says. It used to be an arm of the government, openly
supported by taxation; it ought to be again.

--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com

Stan Brown wrote:
- quote -

They aren't merely supposed to break even, they're *guaranteed* to break
even. My business doesn't get such a guarantee, nor does it get to write
self-interested regulation calculated to hamper its competitors.
Moreover, given how much they've spent on automation, their costs should
have risen significantly slower than inflation, but that's not reflected
in their stamp pricing. The USPS is like any other federal bureaucracy:
a fat, bloated money sink with no discipline or incentive to manage
costs or improve service.

Some states have started allowing private companies to compete with the
state's employee's unions for providing it services. The unions have to
bid and compete like everybody else. Some of the union bids have won!
It's really clamped down on cost increases in the state's budgets, since
the unions don't get to treat the state's taxpayers like their own
private bank (something most visible in CA, for example).
..

In article <7ii6625jjh8epjgch0l3ec4mdkluqfjmlq[at]4ax.com> ,
Barry Gold <bgold[at]nyx.net> wrote:
- quote -

I don't believe the last item is correct. If you take a roll of
37c stamps back to the Post office, they will not accept them
back, either for other denomination postage or for cash. (An
exception exists for damaged stamps.)
--

__
Art Kamlet ArtKamlet [at] AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH

Mark A <nobody[at]nowhere.com> wrote:
- quote -

My thought too, but this discussion is being hosted at
misc.legal.moderated and crossposted to misc.taxes.moderated.
So a legal aspect seemed appropriate.

Dick

In article <ej04625l62g6fc689844kmdo4dbm55rnrv[at]4ax.com> ,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown[at]fastmail.fm> wrote:

- quote -

How many businesses buy stamps at all these days? Don't most large
businesses use postage meters? Buying a huge quantity of forever stamps
would have inventory cost.

I wonder how long the glue can realistically be expected to last. If
you buy a forever stamp, will it still stick 5 years from now?

--
Barry Margolin, barmar[at]alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

"Barry Margolin" <barmar[at]alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:9j0462dj4222u784ivnaphohru7r2jmr8p[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

I suspect that the reason for the "forever stamps" is that the Post Office
does not make much (if any) money by servicing people who stand in line to
buy $.03 stamps when rates increase. At the rate they pay the counter help,
and the cost of printing and distributing the $.03 stamps, they probably
only break even.

The Post Office is loosing business every day to electronic mail, electronic
payments, and even electronic billing. Providing better customer
satisfaction about using the US Mail is in their own best interests.

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]smart.net> wrote in message
news:cj0462tvk8slfbda6broq92vpemhuf01ri[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

Every one of these issues is irrelevant when considering whether a taxable
gain has occurred. There can be no income tax unless the item is sold (not
just used).

Dick Adams <rdadams[at]smart.net> wrote:
- quote -

The Federal Government can make anything illegal it feels like, but in
the past they have treated postage stamps as fully transferable,
assignable, and refundable promises of future service. That is, you
can sell or give stamps to somebody else to use for postal "services",
or you can take them to the post office and turn them in for their
face value.

- quote -

Nothing that I can think of. Like many other entities, their
reputation is the main thing they have to sell(*) and if they default
on their promises that reputation will suffer.

(*) While the USPS does lose some mail, the rate of loss for e-mail
was 3 time higher than for paper mail, last time I looked. THat is,
if your letter has a .1% chance of getting lost, your e-mail has a .3%
chance of getting lost.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

- quote -

This is true of stamps in general, not just the "forever" stamp.

Assuming that the "forever" stamp and ordinary stamps cost the same
for first class postage, why buy an ordinary stamp? If I buy a
roll of 100 stamps with intent to use them within the next month,
why not get free insurance that postal rates won't go up during
that time? There's no down side.

The "forever" stamp delays how quickly the Post Office can make a
rate increase "take". Rumors of a pending rate increase will set
off speculative buying of cheaper "forever" stamps while they're
still available. Even if the rate increase is a complete surprise
to the public, how long will the public's inventory of stamps last?
For a month or so most of the stamps used will be those bought at
the lower rate.

Gordon L. Burditt

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown[at]fastmail.fm> wrote:

- quote -

If they're not doing as well as they should, as far as I'm concerned
it's their own fault. Their customer service is absolutely horrible
(not to mention their reliability leaves much to be desired). No
wonder people use other delivery services when possible.

Stu

bgold[at]nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote:

- quote -

According to the government's official consumer price index,
the price of goods as a whole increased less than seven
times between 1964 and the end of 2005. Using 1967 as a
base year with a value of 100, 1964 had a cpi of 92.9, and
2005 ended the year with a cpi of 585.0.

See http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Dick Adams <rdadams[at]smart.net> wrote:

- quote -

The Federal Government can make anything illegal it feels like,
but in the past they have treated postage stamps as fully
transferable, assignable, and refundable promises of future
service. That is, you can sell or give stamps to somebody else
to use for postal "services", or you can take them to the post
office and turn them in for their face value.

- quote -

Nothing that I can think of. Like many other entities, their
reputation is the main thing they have to sell(*) and if they
default on their promises that reputation will suffer.

(*) While the USPS does lose some mail, the rate of loss for
e-mail was 3 time higher than for paper mail, last time I
looked. That is, if your letter has a .1% chance of getting
lost, your e-mail has a .3% chance of getting lost.

--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of
America, and to the republic which it established, one nation
from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Gordon Burditt wrote:
- quote -

I'd assume it only works for first class letter mail ...
I'm still using up our own as well as other people's leftover stamps
from several rate increases ago to put together other postages
(priority, first class package, international) - that only works
when the value of the stamp is on the stamp as a number.
If you mostly mail standard letters the forever stamp may work for
you. If you run a small mail-order business where the smallest
is a non-machinable letter (OK, I know it would work for that but you
still ahve to have the extra stamp for the non-machinable surcharge)
it probably won't ...

Aloha,

Maren
Palms, Etc.: Tropical Plant Seeds - Hand-made Jewelry - Plants &
Lilikoi
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~maren/palms_etc/

In misc.legal.moderated Gordon Burditt <gordonb.0ybsb[at]burditt.org> wrote:
- quote -

If postage goes to $0.42 and you buy a "forever stamp" then it's good to use
at any time. But if postage then rises to $0.46 and you have used up your
"forever stamp(s)" you have to buy more at the then-current $0.46, etc. I.e.
you can't buy them 10 years from now at the $0.42 rate. So yes, basically
they'll wind up selling nothing but "for-ever stamps" and not selling
"regular stamps" but they won't keep selling "for-ever stamps" at a rate of
$0.42 'for-ever.'



--
Mike

-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004

- quote -


Dick Adams <rdadams[at]smart.net> wrote:
- quote -

See analysis under forgery, below.

- quote -

Actually, the price of a first-class letter has remained grown *more*
slowly than inflation. One ounce costs $0.37 today, which is less than
ten times what it cost in 1964 when each ounce cost $0.05. But $1.00
today buys about as much as $0.10 did in 1964. Actually, I calculated
that 10:1 factor back in the late 90s. I suspect it's more like $1.00
today for $.07 in 1964.

So in inflation-adjusted dollars, the first-class stamp has actually
gotten cheaper. Not surprising, the postal service is a lot more
automated than it was back then. I suspect a private (non-monopoly)
system would be even cheaper, but there is no way to prove that, and
giving up the postal monopoly would eliminate the current subsidy that
people in remote areas receive from people in densely populated urban
areas.

[OBlegal: nonetheless, I think eliminating the "private express" law
would be a good thing]

That means that the cost of forging a stamp -- labor, materials,
capital cost of presses, value of time you might end up spending as an
involuntary guest of the US Government, etc., goes up in proportion with
the cost of a stamp. In fact, if things go on the same as in the past
40 years, the cost of forging a stamp would rise *faster* than the value
of the single-ounce stamp.

Of course, the USPS also issues stamps in larger denominations, for
use in mailing larger packages and/or to overseas destinations.
*Those* stamps might be worth forging. But probably not, or we'd already
see a flood of forged stamps. Part of the reason why not is that
those high-denomination stamps are used infrequently compared with the
standard first-class stamp. And of course that the main use for
stamps is to *mail* things. If you forge stamps to mail a package and
the USPS notices it, they will come back to your return address. If
you fake that (and risk having the package be tossed if there's an
error in the destination address), they can still ask the recipient to
open it and tell them who they think sent it to them. Most of the
time the recipient has a pretty good idea who might have sent them
this particular item.


- quote -

Not necessarily. $1 today is almost always worth more than $1 a year
from now. It's called "time value" or simply "cost of money". Back
when I worked in the defense industry, this was explicitly factored
into contracts, as so much per month. The same thing happens in
business a lot, with invoices quoting "2/10, net/30" meaning you can
pay the full amount in 30 days or get a 2% discount if you pay within
10 days."

If the Postal Service sells a stamp for $.43 this year and it gets used
40 years in the future when a stamp costs (say) $3.50 but the dollar
is (again) worth only 10% of what it is now, they will have made a
"profit" of $.08 on the stamp, based *only* on inflation and ignoring
the Net Present Value of money now (which can be invested in production
facilities or even in securities of some sort) vs. money 40 years from now.

Not such a bad thing for the USPS, IMHO.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Sun, 07 May 2006 22:35:56 -0400 from Dick Adams <rdadams[at]smart.net> :
- quote -

I do know they account for them (my former employer was their
auditor), but I have no idea what percent of Postal Service
liabilities is represented by stamps held by individuals for more
than say three months -- i.e. by collectors as opposed to people who
just take a while to get through a roll of stamps. Do you know?

- quote -

Two factors (at least) militate against that: the cost of money in
making a purchase now to be used in the indefinite future, and the
cost of storage. These reasons are why businesses these days tend to
buy inventory at the last minute.

Oops -- make that three reasons: employee pilferage. With a consumer
item in large quantity, that would be a major problem.

- quote -

Why? Do you suppose that postage stamps will bear any greatly
different relation to the cost of living than they do today? Sure,
postage costs have outstripped inflation if you go back to the 3-
centers of 1967, but that's because the cost was artificially held
low.

AIUI, these days the Postal Service is supposed to break even, and in
particular the cost of a stamp is supposed to cover the cost of a
letter. While the increases may look large because they're so
visible, in fact in recent years they have been more modest than some
other increases. Health care and health insurance come to mind.

It's not economic to forge $1 bills today; why should it be economic
to forge $1 stamps in 20 years when their value will be a fraction of
a 2006 dollar?

--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com

"Robert Bonomi" <bonomi[at]host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote in message
news:tfbt525lm0vthljpikod77tfbhgd9kj63p[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

No need. Some on this newsgroup are CPA's.


- quote -

There would be a capital gain if they were sold above what was originally
paid (basis). Fair market value or what the Post Office currently charges is
irrelevant once they are sold. What matters is the sales price. If they are
not sold, there is no capital gain or loss.

- quote -

Stamps that are purchased and not allocated or used for a specific purpose
are not depreciable assets.

Unless you buy an awful lot of them at one time, stamps are usually
expensed, not capitalized. The exception would be if the stamps are used
specifically to support the creation of a capital asset, such as a
construction project, and everything relating to the project is capitalized.

- quote -

No. The cost of the postage could be expensed (to a business), but it is not
a capital gain or loss unless you specifically bought the stamps for
investment purposes and they were sold.

In certain cases, it could be a casualty loss (not a capital loss) to an
individual or business, but I don't believe that this situation
(undeliverable) would qualify.

You cannot expense an item (either currently or over time via depreciation
of a capital asset) AND claim a capital or casualty loss.