Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 79.

contactmike1

sr. member

Activity: 672

Merit: 251

Quote from: oldbushie on March 26, 2014, 10:38:41 AM

Wait, what?? Retroactive? Shit.

Quote from: irs.gov

Q-16: Will taxpayers be subject to penalties for having treated a virtual currency transaction in a manner that is inconsistent with this notice prior to March 25, 2014?

A-16: Taxpayers may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with tax laws. For example, underpayments attributable to virtual currency transactions may be subject to penalties, such as accuracy-related penalties under section 6662. In addition, failure to timely or correctly report virtual currency transactions when required to do so may be subject to information reporting penalties under section 6721 and 6722. However, penalty relief may be available to taxpayers and persons required to file an information return who are able to establish that the underpayment or failure to properly file information returns is due to reasonable cause.

oldbushie

member

Activity: 94

Merit: 10

Wait, what?? Retroactive? Shit.

Edit: Where in the official pdf does it say that it's retroactive?

contactmike1

sr. member

Activity: 672

Merit: 251

Has anyone digested the IRS information? Does this mean labrat needs to start issuing 1099s? I am not a tax expert, but it seems the guidance suggests he needs to start issuing paperwork to everyone in the USA.

http://www.coindesk.com/irs-bitcoin-tax-guidelines-mean/
http://www.coindesk.com/internal-revenue-service-treat-digital-currencies-property/
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Virtual-Currency-Guidance
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf

The IRS claims the ruling is retroactive, so technically, people need to amend their tax returns for all bitcoin activity back to 2008. Really...? Surely they can't be serious. I doubt anyone has a record of every bitcoin transaction they have done since 2008, and the price they bought and sold for (basis) in order to calculate capital gains.

bobfranklin

member

Activity: 116

Merit: 10

Quote from: ||bit on March 26, 2014, 03:46:53 AM

I notice earlier today that the inventory on Dave's website (www.megabigpower.com) was updated. This must have been done in the past day or two - not long after I was commenting about the peculiar nature of his inventory being available while Labrat hadn't reported any hardware received... Interesting... Just a hypothesis here, maybe Dave actually needed to update his website, and LR called Dave to ask him to update it because of the obvious questions it raised. After all, the consequence of Dave having hardware to ship would not look right if LR wasn't receiving anything. Dave is apparently shifting from selling hardware to creating a farm to lease GH (which is Dave's only remaining retail product). As such, just guessing that any future hardware sells would be only with high volume customers - e.g. Coinseed, LRM.

For posterity can you list the before/after numbers? (units or hash whatever you feel is best).

I'm curious is all, from memory the "in hand" hashrate was a deal lower? (not second guessing at all, as I said, just curious).

||bit

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

I notice earlier today that the inventory on Dave's website (www.megabigpower.com) was updated. This must have been done in the past day or two - not long after I was commenting about the peculiar nature of his inventory being available while Labrat hadn't reported any hardware received... Interesting... Just a hypothesis here, maybe Dave actually needed to update his website, and LR called Dave to ask him to update it because of the obvious questions it raised. After all, the consequence of Dave having hardware to ship would not look right if LR wasn't receiving anything. Dave is apparently shifting from selling hardware to creating a farm to lease GH (which is Dave's only remaining retail product). As such, just guessing that any future hardware sells would be only with high volume customers - e.g. Coinseed, LRM.

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

Quote from: Flashman on March 25, 2014, 05:01:44 PM

Quote from: bittymitty on March 25, 2014, 03:35:43 PM

Ok let presume that Lat Rat is not a fraudster

He's more along the lines of an overoptimistic kid who's about to get a gigantic, spiky, dose of reality shoved up his ass.

Yeah I agree, I think he honestly thinks his LLC is gonna protect him but in reality I think the corporate veil will be pierced very easily.

Flashman

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Hodl!

Quote from: bittymitty on March 25, 2014, 03:35:43 PM

Ok let presume that Lat Rat is not a fraudster

He's more along the lines of an overoptimistic kid who's about to get a gigantic, spiky, dose of reality shoved up his ass.

BKM

sr. member

Activity: 315

Merit: 250

Quote from: bittymitty on March 25, 2014, 03:35:43 PM

Ok let presume that Lat Rat is not a fraudster and is working his hardest to keep this thing going while honoring the original agreement.

Why can we not get the following information:

Current bond list

Original contract details

Why has the following not been provided:

Any business report/financials

A trading platform

These are basic requirements that have nothing to do with any laws/statutes

Can anyone answer any of these questions or answer why we should not be privilege to this?

Maybe Lab Rat could clarify this?

I wish I could. I really do. But, alas. No.

bittymitty

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Ok let presume that Lat Rat is not a fraudster and is working his hardest to keep this thing going while honoring the original agreement.

Why can we not get the following information:

Current bond list

Original contract details

Why has the following not been provided:

Any business report/financials

A trading platform

These are basic requirements that have nothing to do with any laws/statutes

Can anyone answer any of these questions or answer why we should not be privilege to this?

Maybe Lab Rat could clarify this?

mufa23

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1001

I'd fight Gandhi.

I wonder if the news about the IRS today has anything to do with Labrat. Maybe Labrat was notified/knew about these IRS changes a few months before they announced it today?

rustyh17

full member

Activity: 213

Merit: 100

Quote from: sparky999 on March 25, 2014, 11:30:31 AM

I think there are plenty of people with lawyers on stand by right now

I would submit that proceeding collectively could maximize our voice and minimize the individual
expense of legal representation (if that is necessary).

Flashman

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Hodl!

BTW it did occur to me that the legal quagmire might have been unrelated to crypto per-se ... there's some chance it fell afoul of regulations against ponzi schemes or HYIPs. Anyone with time on their hands might like to look into NJ statue on that.

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

I think there are plenty of people with lawyers on stand by right now

rustyh17

full member

Activity: 213

Merit: 100

I believe it is time to start building a bondholder quorum so that when we receive a formal response
from LRM regarding a contract change, we are ready to proceed with a formal response based on
real consensus.

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

Quote from: mmmerlin on March 25, 2014, 10:02:19 AM

Quote from: contactmike1 on March 25, 2014, 08:53:57 AM

If labrat already has the new hardware, we likely won't be seeing any dividend changes yet. I doubt labrat will give an update on the hardware until after the contract issue is resolved. If he publicly announces that the new hardware is mining and people aren't getting paid for it yet, all the pitchforks are going to come out, yet again. There's no reason to stir the pot in this manner when it is known we can't receive the dividends yet. So my guess is the announcement will come with the announcement of the new contract, and it will contain all the relevant information for a large back-pay of the backlogged dividends we are due.

There are good reasons to believe this to be the case - just thought I'd share a little light in the darkness.

What good reasons? Zach certainly hasn't offered any either publicly or privately to anyone else, not even grngb, so do tell please?

mmmerlin

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: contactmike1 on March 25, 2014, 08:53:57 AM

If labrat already has the new hardware, we likely won't be seeing any dividend changes yet. I doubt labrat will give an update on the hardware until after the contract issue is resolved. If he publicly announces that the new hardware is mining and people aren't getting paid for it yet, all the pitchforks are going to come out, yet again. There's no reason to stir the pot in this manner when it is known we can't receive the dividends yet. So my guess is the announcement will come with the announcement of the new contract, and it will contain all the relevant information for a large back-pay of the backlogged dividends we are due.

There are good reasons to believe this to be the case - just thought I'd share a little light in the darkness.

contactmike1

sr. member

Activity: 672

Merit: 251

If labrat already has the new hardware, we likely won't be seeing any dividend changes yet. I doubt labrat will give an update on the hardware until after the contract issue is resolved. If he publicly announces that the new hardware is mining and people aren't getting paid for it yet, all the pitchforks are going to come out, yet again. There's no reason to stir the pot in this manner when it is known we can't receive the dividends yet. So my guess is the announcement will come with the announcement of the new contract, and it will contain all the relevant information for a large back-pay of the backlogged dividends we are due.

bobfranklin

member

Activity: 116

Merit: 10

Quote from: ||bit on March 24, 2014, 07:23:27 PM

Quote from: bobfranklin on March 24, 2014, 06:59:39 PM

I'm also not 100% committed enough to argue it (or serious!). I get the angst, but I'm tending to sit on the fence until some information appears rather than go off half cocked (but hey that's just me). Wasn't meant to appear as an attack at all, more just a case of "sure but the argument for those points swings both ways and gives no proof/evidence of either argument in that sense" which concern doesn't enter into in my mind in a black and white sense. Although I for one won't say more/some info would be nice.

I'm certainly ready to see this saga end - one way or the other. Either Zach pulls through and does right to investors. Or we find out the worse, and it is a fraud.
One things for sure, if it is a fraud, the courts will settle it. Even if a new contract is presented that supposedly nullifies the old, LRM will be susceptible to a lawsuit.

It will be interesting (but sad) if LR tries to word any new contract without including any semblance of a guaranteeing that investors returns grow proportionately with new assets.
Anything less may start a riot.

By the way, just curious, would you entertain my question on the hardware? I'd like to hear someone else's take on that. Can you imagine a reasonable explanation?

Totally agree with that. Fingers crossed scenario personally.

Sure, it's clear Dave is selling hardware and stock levels indicate he's shipping hardware. To be completely black and white on it there's no evidence to support receipt of any shipment by zach as far as I can tell (this doesn't mean it hasn't been received - but I haven't seen a manifest for example). I'm actually inclined to believe that some hardware has been received at least as the divs were up the previous 2 weeks. Until I get clarification though I'm happy to sit in the dark being the mushroom I am (although I won't be happy if it's revealed it's been in for 2 weeks and is mining beyond the scope).

||bit

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

Quote from: elitenoob on March 24, 2014, 07:07:37 PM

So lawyer was supposed to give news on friday or saturday i guess and he was "sick" and now monday is over (at least for me) and still nothing. So it was a lie or this lawyer is too dumb to handle this.

It just delays another couple days - so goes life here. I didn't expect anything though. Didn't he just say he was going to meet with the lawyer, but it was canceled for health reasons?

As for other news.. in his last comment he said he would or he wouldn't have some new info that day. Apparently, he didn't have anything.

||bit

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

Quote from: bobfranklin on March 24, 2014, 06:59:39 PM

I'm also not 100% committed enough to argue it (or serious!). I get the angst, but I'm tending to sit on the fence until some information appears rather than go off half cocked (but hey that's just me). Wasn't meant to appear as an attack at all, more just a case of "sure but the argument for those points swings both ways and gives no proof/evidence of either argument in that sense" which concern doesn't enter into in my mind in a black and white sense. Although I for one won't say more/some info would be nice.

I'm certainly ready to see this saga end - one way or the other. Either Zach pulls through and does right to investors. Or we find out the worse, and it is a fraud.
One things for sure, if it is a fraud, the courts will settle it. Even if a new contract is presented that supposedly nullifies the old, LRM will be susceptible to a lawsuit.

It will be interesting (but sad) if LR tries to word any new contract without including any semblance of a guaranteeing that investors returns grow proportionately with new assets.
Anything less may start a riot.

By the way, just curious, would you entertain my question on the hardware? I'd like to hear someone else's take on that. Can you imagine a reasonable explanation?

Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 79. (Read 452224 times)