Topic: I didn't pay capital gains tax on bitcoin sales to IRS today - page 2. (Read 24100 times)

You have the be the most ignorant person I've ever seen. Please get some STATISTICS. Without those regulations that your anarchy mind finds annoying, half of us would be dead from disease, crime, etc etc. GROW UP.

I would argue that no one would even bother to try to figure out what is good and what is bad for consumers if it wasn't for food regulations. If businesses didn't need to worry about keeping customers safe then why bother?
[/quote]

How old are you? Has anyone ever explained to you the psychological concept of "projection"??

I would argue that no one would even bother to try to figure out what is good and what is bad for consumers if it wasn't for food regulations. If businesses didn't need to worry about keeping customers safe then why bother?

If I wrote a nice little book about money laundering, suppose anyone would buy it?

2012 Food Poisoning Statistics (National)

    Salmonella poisoning is the most common type of food poisoning. It causes 40 percent of food poisoning cases. There were 7,800 reported cases of Salmonella poisoning in 2012, with 33 deaths.
    Campylobacter, a type of bacteria that is spread through chicken and unpasteurized milk and cheese, is becoming more common. In 2012, 7,000 people were sickened by Campylobacter, and another six died.
    Vibrio infections – caused by contaminated seafood spread via warm sea water – have increased 43 percent. In 2012, there were 193 cases of Vibrio infections and six deaths.
    Approximately one in six Americans (48 million people) is sickened by foodborne illnesses every year, and about 3,000 die.
    Roughly 128,000 people are hospitalized annually for foodborne illnesses.

Music to my hears

The vast majority of regulations are unnecessary, contre productive and/or implemented because of corruption or for an other bad reason; the more regulation you have the more difficult it is for the small companies and the newcomers that is why most big corporations love regulation and big government

It is a shame that people pay the taxes because that DOES support regulation and that DOES prevent it from happening.  As a result more people are alive (which is good), but there are loads of food producers that don't create healthy food and are slowly killing everyone (which is bad, and outweighs the good of those few still being alive by several magnitudes).  If we stopped supporting the regulation, we could get rid of the bad actors because they would no longer be protected from their small, agile, and often healthier competitors.  Free the market, and you end up improving the world.  Regulate it, and you make it more fragile. 

Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder."  I recommend it!

Food safety rules and regulations are written to support big commercial farms and in turn target and burden family farmers especially regarding sustainable and organic farming, and thus reduce the availability of fresh, local food in our communities. The over-regulate rules cost farmers their profits and keep beginners from starting to farm.

If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.

The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes

You could make a long list of money spent badly and wasted for the average joe, the solution is to have a small government budget because you will have less power to sell so less occupation and less money to waste

I don't live in the USA, but the immense oversized army the thing has can bring a man thinking where the money comes from, they could easely cut in such relatively unimportand matters, but who am I?

Incorrect, you are not guilty of breaking the law until the court finds you guilty. (you missed the subtlety of it)

Survival is the ultimate monkey.

Which argument did you mean?

The IRS lists several arguments that the Secretary has determined are frivolous.  My argument is not on there, and Hendrickson's site shows refund checks and other documents from the IRS demonstrating that this argument is actually correct.  Here it is:

You can find good answers to just about any rendering of the general question "If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would ____ be paid for?"  I'll give you a few links for the two items you used:

Food Safety: http://www.westonaprice.org/
National Defense: https://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

Generally, the things that are paid for with taxes fall into two classes.  The first class includes "National Defense": Problems created, invented, or imagined by governments in order to justify their publicly sanctioned privilege to violate citizens through taxation, fines, and incarceration.  The second class includes food safety: People generally pay for what they need, but if someone offers it to them "for free" and does a half-decent job at least in the beginning, then they will learn to expect it "for free" even when "for free" means "in return for being violated through taxation, fines, and incarceration," and continue in that expectation (as you seem to) even as that expectation tends to multiply the cost and diminish the quality.

You may uncover a problem that cannot be solved without a government that enforces tax laws against its citizens (in other words, steals from them under the color of law) in order to raise the revenue required to solve that problem.  At that point, you have to start asking whether you consider theft to be immoral, and if you do, then decide whether you can justify immoral behavior using the goal of that immoral behavior.  My answer is no, the end does not justify immorality, and therefore such a problem ought to remain unsolved until humanity finds a moral way to solve it.

Another simple answer to food safety concerns is this: Eat a little bit of anything new to see how it suits you, don't eat a lot of anything, and pay attention to your body and your health, and the reputation of the suppliers from whom you get your food.

Food safety is the responsible of both consumer and producer. And national defense alone don't cost 30%+ income from everyone in the country.

A lot of people (who don't pay/file taxes) make this argument. If you don't believe in paying taxes then how would food safety be paid for, or how would national defense be paid for?

Hey Guys i thought i should clear this up once and for all. Tax liability has nothing to do with FIAT gains. Examples are numerous but one that will illustrate this well is the IRS position on taxing traded services where no FIAT is used.
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html
"Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber exchanging plumbing services for the dental services of a dentist. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering."
Obviously this doesn't pertain to Bitcoin but people need to free their minds from the mistaken belief that FIAT must be involved to be a taxable event.

FIAT or not, there are still a number of issues, Bitcoin mining is a service provided by miners to the network for a "service fee" known as a reward. The Bitcoin nodes also charge a fee for their "service" and this is known as a "transaction fee".
These activities are covered in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income under the section "information on miscellaneous income from exchanges involving property or services".
Bitcoin mining is specifically covered in this IRS document:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf
Q-8: Does a taxpayer who "mines" virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the currency resulting from those activities?
A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully "mines" virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income.

To complicate matters further the IRS state that any use of the "virtual currency" whatsoever would create a "taxable event".
Here is the most important revelation, the IRS require "any exchange" of "virtual currency" for other property (including other virtual currency, as it is considered property) to be considered for tax purposes. (eg. exchange of Bitcoin to Litecoin or other Altcoin)
Q-6: Does a taxpayer have gain or loss upon exchange of virtual currency for other property?
A-6: Yes. See Publication 544, Sales and Other Dispositions of Assets

So clearly FIAT is not a required component, to be liable for tax purposes, as the measurement used is "fair market value" not actual FIAT.
Although you are correct in the assertion that "holding bitcoin is tax rate of ZERO" you must consider that obtaining and disposing of Bitcoin are "taxable events" for tax purposes. In other words 'it is not possible for you to hold Bitcoin without "someone" first paying tax on that Bitcoin' or put another way 'you cannot mine, buy, sell, trade, swap or obtain Bitcoin (or any other virtual currency) without someone paying tax'.
Obtaining Bitcoin is a taxable event, holding it after this is irrelevant.

Hope this clears things up.

who says that? I believe the argument is that they aren't "taxpayers" to begin with.

They are correct if there is no evidence that they received money from privileged activity, but W2s, 1099s, and the like ARE such evidence and the IRS has the people (incorrectly) producing them send those "information returns" directly to the IRS.  It is left up to the victim to set the record straight (with forms 4852, or corrected 1099s) or pay the alleged tax liabilities.  So it is like the position you wrote, but qualified and therefore legally valid, as the scans on the website of people receiving refunds shows.

By the way, I don't think the IRS ever points out that the presumptive legal evidence they receive in the form of W2s and 1099s is the basis of their (correct) position that the victims of their scam are actually legally obligated to file a return.  While it is immoral for them to require us to do that paperwork just because they've successfully tricked someone else into providing them with presumptive legal evidence, it is still the laws of the land.  It is far less damaging than actually forcing us to pay a tax we don't owe but, as in many cases, their brazen immorality in the first case is tolerated (actually supported by the justice system) because it isn't so onerous.  Then they leverage it into the far worse theft (when misapplied, as it generally is) that people call "income tax".

That sounds a lot like the people who say that they do not have to file their taxes because there is no law that says a taxpayer must file their 1040.