here are people on a World of Warcraft forum having a serious discussion about paying taxes on WoW gold
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20742965783
here are some people talking about V Bucks and tax
https://www.reddit.com/r/FortNiteBR/comments/7lzaqv/do_vbucks_have_tax
here is an article that states a report from congress says you might owe taxes on WoW gold
https://www.engadget.com/2013/06/19/congressional-report-says-you-may-owe-taxes-on-your-wow-income/
here is a guy that sued a company for "making WoW less fun" by selling services from 3rd world countries
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1:2007cv21403/296927
you don't have to pay taxes as long as you are under the impression that you didn't have to pay taxes and bitcoin is not money according to the court so altcoins definitely aren't money and tokens definitely definitely are not money
Topic: People pay your Taxes - page 2. (Read 82772 times)
as long as you honestly believe that you don't have to pay taxes and it's not based on some constitutional theory such as that the amendment allowing the government to collect taxes was not properly ratified then it is ok in court so if you honestly don't think you have to pay taxes on cryptocurrencies then you can argue that in court
Eisner V Macomber:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/189/case.html
"The fundamental relation of "capital" to "income" has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue. After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 231 U. S. 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185), "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle case, pp. 247 U. S. 183-185. Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived from capital;" "the gain derived from capital," etc. Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment -- "incomes, from whatever source derived"-- the essential thought being expressed with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution. "
"It is manifest that the stock dividend in question cannot be reached by the Income Tax Act and could not, even though Congress expressly declared it to be taxable as income, unless it is in fact income."
"Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549, 136 U. S. 559-560. In short, the corporation is no poorer and the stockholder is no richer than they were before."
"And if, for the reasons thus expressed, such a dividend is not to be regarded as "income" or "dividends" within the meaning of the Act of 1913, we are unable to see how it can be brought within the meaning of "incomes" in the Sixteenth Amendment, it being very clear that Congress intended in that act to exert its power to the extent permitted by the amendment."
"Just as we deem the legislative intent manifest to tax the stockholder with respect to such accumulations only if and when, and to the extent that, his interest in them comes to fruition as income, that is, in dividends declared, so we can perceive no constitutional obstacle that stands in the way of carrying out this intent"
"[The 16th Amendment] did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173. "
"In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."
"We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is the richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows he has not realized or received any income in the transaction."
"It is equally true that, if he does sell, and in doing so realizes a profit, such profit, like any other, is income, and, so far as it may have arisen since the Sixteenth Amendment, is taxable by Congress without apportionment."
"Thus, the government contends that the tax "is levied on income derived from corporate earnings," when in truth the stockholder has "derived" nothing except paper certificates, which, so far as they have any effect, deny him present participation in such earnings. It contends that the tax may be laid when earnings "are received by the stockholder," whereas he has received none; that the profits are "distributed by means of a stock dividend," although a stock dividend distributes no profits; that, under the Act of 1916, "the tax is on the stockholder's share in corporate earnings," when in truth a stockholder has no such share, and receives none in a stock dividend; that "the profits are segregated from his former capital, and he has a separate certificate representing his invested profits or gains," "
"We cannot disregard the essential truth disclosed, ignore the substantial difference between corporation and stockholder, treat the entire organization as unreal, look upon stockholders as partners when they are not such, treat them as having in equity a right to a partition of the corporate assets when they have none, and indulge the fiction that they have received and realized a share of the profits of the company which in truth they have neither received nor realized."
"Thus, from every point of view, we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/189/case.html
"The fundamental relation of "capital" to "income" has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue. After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 231 U. S. 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185), "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle case, pp. 247 U. S. 183-185. Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived from capital;" "the gain derived from capital," etc. Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment -- "incomes, from whatever source derived"-- the essential thought being expressed with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution. "
"It is manifest that the stock dividend in question cannot be reached by the Income Tax Act and could not, even though Congress expressly declared it to be taxable as income, unless it is in fact income."
"Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549, 136 U. S. 559-560. In short, the corporation is no poorer and the stockholder is no richer than they were before."
"And if, for the reasons thus expressed, such a dividend is not to be regarded as "income" or "dividends" within the meaning of the Act of 1913, we are unable to see how it can be brought within the meaning of "incomes" in the Sixteenth Amendment, it being very clear that Congress intended in that act to exert its power to the extent permitted by the amendment."
"Just as we deem the legislative intent manifest to tax the stockholder with respect to such accumulations only if and when, and to the extent that, his interest in them comes to fruition as income, that is, in dividends declared, so we can perceive no constitutional obstacle that stands in the way of carrying out this intent"
"[The 16th Amendment] did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173. "
"In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."
"We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is the richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows he has not realized or received any income in the transaction."
"It is equally true that, if he does sell, and in doing so realizes a profit, such profit, like any other, is income, and, so far as it may have arisen since the Sixteenth Amendment, is taxable by Congress without apportionment."
"Thus, the government contends that the tax "is levied on income derived from corporate earnings," when in truth the stockholder has "derived" nothing except paper certificates, which, so far as they have any effect, deny him present participation in such earnings. It contends that the tax may be laid when earnings "are received by the stockholder," whereas he has received none; that the profits are "distributed by means of a stock dividend," although a stock dividend distributes no profits; that, under the Act of 1916, "the tax is on the stockholder's share in corporate earnings," when in truth a stockholder has no such share, and receives none in a stock dividend; that "the profits are segregated from his former capital, and he has a separate certificate representing his invested profits or gains," "
"We cannot disregard the essential truth disclosed, ignore the substantial difference between corporation and stockholder, treat the entire organization as unreal, look upon stockholders as partners when they are not such, treat them as having in equity a right to a partition of the corporate assets when they have none, and indulge the fiction that they have received and realized a share of the profits of the company which in truth they have neither received nor realized."
"Thus, from every point of view, we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."
bitcoin is not money according to the courts so ethereum is definitely not money and ethereum tokens are definitely definitely not money
Florida v Espinoza, No F14-2923 (11th Cir 2016)
https://www.coindesk.com/court-reject-bitcoin-money-florida-espinoza-trial/
Florida v Espinoza, No F14-2923 (11th Cir 2016)
https://www.coindesk.com/court-reject-bitcoin-money-florida-espinoza-trial/
Here is a calculator if this can be of any help for someone.
https://cleartax.in/s/bitcoin-tax-calculator
https://cleartax.in/s/bitcoin-tax-calculator
Did anyone paid the taxes on crypto. and what if it's not very big amount , then also do i need to pay the taxes( amount ranges in between 10k - 20k INR).??
Depends on what tax bracket you fall in.
Did anyone paid the taxes on crypto. and what if it's not very big amount , then also do i need to pay the taxes( amount ranges in between 10k - 20k INR).??
Anyone here who pay taxes for crypto currency?
yeah I would love to if I had made any profits. But since I entered the market, whole crypto market is just keeping on going down. I don't even know whether I'll recover my original investment or not. So no gains, no taxes.
You can claim these losses from government via reverse credit through ITR-8. The government will process it with your IT return and you'll get your claim amount back into your bank account, although you'll need to attach relevant proof of losses. This is in line with RBI's latest policy circular dated 5th May 2018 to protect investors from high-risk crypto investments. More information on RBI's website.
/s
Anyone here who pay taxes for crypto currency?
yeah I would love to if I had made any profits. But since I entered the market, whole crypto market is just keeping on going down. I don't even know whether I'll recover my original investment or not. So no gains, no taxes.
I don't think I need to pay any taxes to govt for my crypto transactions because I only invested and lost, earned nothing 
But seriously guys if you have made any profits then do pay your taxes as tax evasion is wil get you in big troubles.
But seriously guys if you have made any profits then do pay your taxes as tax evasion is wil get you in big troubles.
But not every one is a part time worker or a student. and many do have bitcoin transactions over 2 lakh. They, need to keep records and pay tax properly.
Ah well fuck indian gov i'm not going to pay any tax.
+1
Pay taxes for what?? no roads.. shitass electric supply.. open garbages..
Our money is only gettin locked away in swiss accounts by these fuckin bureaucrats..
I understand you frustration. but fighting against the system head on is only gona give the government reasons to go after the bitcoin community users. we can fuck up theses bureaucrats once we have established a proper global decentralized currency. away from the control of world governments.
Its in moments like this i feel the absence of crappy media.. they can replay the same fuckin news for two days in a row but cannot actually do one good thing for the community.. i mean while the rest of the world news agencies are giving out reviews.. positive negative other matter.. but atleast people know.. Sometimes i wonder why is India so fucked up on so many different levels.. and yet we are india shining.. Grrrr..
Remember, media shows its own views, not the peoples views.During demonitisation, some people were for it and a lot were against it. But the news showed only the happy ones.
When i Talk to friends in china, i feel india is going to be china soon(in terms of freedom of thought).
If you want to win a new car read this.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GkAl0Ibx6FvhsIQwrj7vItIR_ndsp2qf
Pls Read and if you believe me, you share for me
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GkAl0Ibx6FvhsIQwrj7vItIR_ndsp2qf
Pls Read and if you believe me, you share for me
most e important thing about our coin community is thriving. we need to show that all bitcoiners are tax paying honest citizens who just wants economical freedom .
This is the most important one. as positive views grow, more and more people start to join in, this revolution and a thriving eco system can be created.
This is the most important one. as positive views grow, more and more people start to join in, this revolution and a thriving eco system can be created.
Profits from trading through cryptos comes under the earning from capital gain and can be of short term capital gain or long term capital gain. if you earned profit by keeping your investment for more than 1 year your income will be tax free.
Nope. I think that's not right.
LTCG is applicable for these assets
A) immovable assets/property ( land, building and house ) - if held for more than 24 months ( before FY 2017, it was 36 months )
B) movable assets ( jewellery , gold , etc ) - if held for more than 36 months
C) equity/bonds/ securities ( held for more than 12 months )
Exceptions on taxation are applicable -
For A under certain scenarios ( eg : selling a land/property to buy another land /property , sale of agricultural land etc * Some conditions apply. )
For C) from 2018 - if gains are more than 1 Lakh , else it is flat 10% tax
Crypto-currencies does not fall under the exemption category of LTCG.
It seems to be very interesting topic. I consider that its good to maintain your financial records clear. Profits from trading through cryptos comes under the earning from capital gain and can be of short term capital gain or long term capital gain. if you earned profit by keeping your investment for more than 1 year your income will be tax free.Moreover your net income from capital gain is subject to any losses that you occured in that year. thus any losses on investment will be deducted from the gains to get the net gain on which the tax will be levied.
Happy trading !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy trading !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
paying taxes is best way to come out of tax zone with income tax departments so it is better we pay taxes on time we respect crypto as well taxation in india
Guys, calculating taxes on crypto trading is rather easy and there is no ambiguity even in the bsence of any clear IT notification. The artcles in media are rubbish. Taxation is straight forward for all you Crypto -INR trading pairs. However it gets messy and complex in case of crypto-crypto transactions.
Japan using bitcoin as salary for thier employeer because of this in that country easy for transaction of crypto currency ...it will increase blockchain market
I am actually paying taxes on the amount I am withdrawing from Indian exchange to my bank account , but after looking at new tax form , it's looks like government want us to pay taxes on what we are holding in cryptocurrency ,that is wrong , if my holdings gets zero by any incident , that's the uncertainty , so I support taxes on crytpo , but only on the amount we are withdrawing from exchange to bank , not on our cryptocurrency holdings
which new tax form u r talking about...? .... but after looking at new tax form , it's looks like government want us to pay taxes on what we are holding in cryptocurrency ,that is wrong , if my holdings gets zero by any incident , that's the uncertainty , so I support taxes on crytpo , but only on the amount we are withdrawing from exchange to bank , not on our cryptocurrency holdings
Does the new tax form require one to declare the bitcoin assets ? #Just curious
Jump to: