Taxmanhog wrote:
- quote -

I have to agree with Alan on this one. How can one receive a rebate on
something not yet paid? And taxes aren't "paid" until the return is
filed? And since it's for 2008, those returns won't be filed until
next year about this time.

So I would recommend we call it an "advance rebate". Or maybe an
"advance rebate in a political year."

- quote -

actually out working for a living", it also includes retirees drawing
disability and/or social security checks only.
- quote -


ChEAr$,
Harlan

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Alan"

- quote -

I disagree, wage pay checks from 1/1/2008 to 4/30/2008 showing with holdings
of Federal Income Tax would certainly have been credited the US TREASURY,
which are deposited on a weekly basis... through out the calendar year.



So, as on now and through the distribution phase those folks actually out
working for a living ARE paying taxes in 2008, in this STIMULUS is a REBATE
of some of those payments, which will be RECONCILED when the 2008 return is
filed in the spring of 2009.



I believe the mechanics of this operation are better than the fiasco of the
early 90's when someone thought it was a bright idea to lower the Circular E
FED-WH factors to put a few pennies in peoples weekly paycheck, that action
was an effort to implement a mid-year tax reduction. The end result was
a -LOT- of folks who have balances due at the end of the year rather than
refunds, talk about some PO'd Tax Payers.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

tobe wrote:
- quote -


ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -

So if a dependent (over age 17) who files taxes will get no "rebate"
this year, next year when the person files no-longer-as-a-dependent,
will he or she only get a tax credit up to what taxes are owed, and, if
less that $600, not get the "full" $600 "rebate"?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Mark Bole wrote:
- quote -


A rebate is a return or refund on something you have already
paid. The stimulus payment is therefore not a rebate as it is
not a return of any taxes you already paid. Congress & the Pres.
created a refundable tax credit for tax year 2008. You will see
this tax credit on your 2008 tax return. They then gave the US
Treasury permission to send you this refundable tax credit in
advance of your having to file your 2008 tax return to obtain it.
If the advance payment is larger than your 2008 tax credit....
your in luck as you don't have to pay it back. If your tax
situation in 2008 generates a credit that is larger than your
advance payment, your in luck again as you will get to use the
excess to reduce your 2008 taxes.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Mark Bole <makbo[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
- quote -

I remember seeing a story on the news a couple of weeks ago. Some
psychologists were interviewed, and they said that studies show that if
it's called a "rebate" people are more likely to save it, while if they
called it something like a "bonus distribution" people are more likely
to spend it.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown wrote:
- quote -

Which affirms my point, namely what the OP is asking for doesn't exist.

Although Alan stated "the payment is not a rebate", a rebate is exactly
what a story today from Associated Press ("Rebate letters to cost $42
million"), as well as Turbotax and H&R Block, are calling the payments.

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Mar 5, 11:05*pm, Mark Bole <ma...[at]pacbell.net> wrote:

- quote -

Alan's explanation is as clear and concise as you're going to get.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Is the following correct or am I still off in some dream world
somewhere?

If the taxpayer has at least $1 tax liability:
Filing status Qualifying income Tax liability
Payment Children<17
Single/MFS 8750 or more 1 - 300
300 300
301 -
599 Tax liability 300
600 or more
600 300
The tax liability and payment numbers are the same for HOH and QW but
the qualifying income numbers are 11250 and 14100. For MFJ its 17500
and 1-600 (600), 601-1199 (tax liability), and 1200 or more (1200)
plus 300 per qualifying child.

If a person does not meet the qualifying income test or has no tax
liability, but they have at least 3000 in qualifying income, they will
receive the minimum payment of 300 (600 MFJ) plus 300 per qualifying
child.

All I'm trying to do is develop a simple look-up table that could
replace paragraph after paragraph of confusing text.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Alan wrote:
- quote -

[...]
- quote -

So much for avoiding IRS-speak and CPA-talk! ;-)

According to Merriam-Webster, a "rebate" is "a return of a part of a
payment". The fact that part of my tax payment might be returned to
someone else who didn't owe any tax in the first place does not make the
definition inapplicable.

Really, whatever term you use, it is a mid-year tax cut for most people,
and a government welfare payment for others (those for whom the
"refundable" part is significant).

Now if the marketing types had been on the ball, instead of calling it a
"stimulus payment", maybe they should have taken a cue from the Alaska
folks and called it a "freedom dividend" or something like that...

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Ed wrote:
- quote -

A Reasonable Explanation:

The payment is not a rebate. It is an advance payment of a
refundable tax credit for tax year 2008. Anyone who files a 2008
tax return and computes a credit that is less than the advance
payment does not have to pay any part of the advance payment
back. Anyone who files a 2008 tax return and computes a credit in
excess of the advance payment will get the excess.

The General Rule to obtain an advance payment in 2007:
Every taxpayer who files a tax return will receive the lesser of
$600 or their tax liability (regular plus AMT) measured without
including the child tax credit. $1200 on a joint return.

The Special Rules:
Certain taxpayers will receive a minimum of $300 ($600 joint
return) if they meet either of the following two rules.
Rule 1. They have qualifying income (any combination of social
security benefits, VA benefits and earned income) of at least $3000.
Rule 2. They have gross income greater than the sum of the basic
standard deduction plus the personal exemption (2X the personal
exemption on a joint return) and they have a tax liability of at
least $1.

Any taxpayer who meets the Special Rule will receive an
additional $300 for each qualifying child eligible for the Child
Tax Credit.

The amount of the advance payment will be reduced by 5% of the
AGI in excess of $75000 ($150,000 joint return).

Nonresident aliens, dependents, estates and trusts are not
eligible. Each taxpayer must have a social security number to
qualify, If one spouse does not have a SSN on a joint return,
both spouses are ineligible. A qualifying child must also have a
social security number.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Ed wrote:
- quote -

Perhaps, given an "unlikely scenario". Thank goodness there's that
Circular 230 disclaimer at the bottom of every message... ;-)

- quote -

I haven't read all the replies, but is it possible that such an
explanation does not exist? After all, we're talking about a tax
rebate, not a phenomenon of nature.

Ask yourself, is there a tax consequence to Joe and Jane *not*
understanding? Whatever they miss in 2008, they can claim in 2009.

Please do not start three or more threads on the same topic, it is
contrary to the aims of a moderated newsgroup, IMHO.

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Mar 4, 5:53*pm, Ed <edur...[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

Well, judging from the examples at the IRS web site, the correct
answer should be $300:

<http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...179169,00.html
- quote -

Does the basic on-line explanation from the IRS fit the bill? It's
aimed at ordinary people*, or does it still have too much IRS-speak?

<http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...179211,00.html
The top-level entry for the IRS explanation is at

<http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=177937,00.html
* But bureaucrats often miss this target, at least when writing...

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

I presented an unlikely scenario where a single person has AGI of
$8749 and a tax liability of $1 and asked what the rebate would be. I
got four different answers:

The answer depends on the amount of earned income, i.e., wages,
salaries, or net self-employment income.
$1
$300
$301

It is obvious that there is disagreement even within this august
group.

What I'm looking for is an explanation of the program that is free of
IRS-speak and CPA-talk (sorry) and is written in plain simple English
that the ordinary Joe and Jane Taxpayer can understand.

If I could find that, (or be able to understand the program so I could
write it myself) I would go away and not bother you anymore. I'm not
trying to publish a paper, I just want to be able to clearly and
accurately explain the program to clients.

Thanks for your patience,
Ed

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >