this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
405 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3774 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Here's a description of how this works:

Let’s look at a concrete example to get a better sense of what’s going on. A taxpayer has a property which has appreciated. It currently has a market value of $1 million, with a cost basis [how much was paid for it] of $100,000. This taxpayer wishes to conduct an outright sale. If that happens, though, the taxpayer would incur a significant liability because of the sizable gain [capital gains tax on the difference between the cost basis and the sale price]. The taxpayer, therefore, finds a related party who has a much higher basis of, say, $950,000 on a property with a current market value of $1.1 million. The parties then conduct a direct swap exchange.

Based on the foregoing example, the related party receives a property with a market value of $1 million. Meanwhile, the cost basis of $950,000 stays the same. The related party then ultimately sells the relinquished property and incurs a much, much, smaller liability [capital gains tax] from the sale. The two parties then distribute the profits between themselves. Eventually, the related party reacquires the replacement property with a deed back.

This type of transaction may not run afoul of the requirements of Section 1031 on paper. Clearly, though, it offends the underlying purposes of Code Section 1031. The sole purpose of the related party is to realize greater profits. The courts have now collapsed these types of transactions. “Basis shifting” is now a well-established violation of the related party rules.

Of particular note, this is already a violation. What the IRS wants to do is actually enforce the rules that this behavior violates.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can't wait to see all these wealthy assholes never move the money they've threatened to expatriate over this. Tax these fucks.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

Maybe they should take it to Russia with them, instead of trying to bring Russia here.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

*The IRS estimated earlier this year that if Republicans don't succeed in rolling back funding increases, the agency could collect roughly $560 billion from big corporations and rich tax cheats over the next 10 years. *

50 Billion a year, almost nothing.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

And if they spend 10% of that into thoroughly investigating tax fraud and -avoidance, they will probably unearth at least twice the total amount again. All without needing to raise any taxes, just by making the culprits pay what is due.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

The real loophole to close is the theft of the working class's surplus labor value.

But then how would our politicians get their campaign contributions?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The super rich are the ones who created basically everything in the economy. Including this loophole, the closing of this loophole and the existence of all other loopholes.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They created you and me and the earth itself.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

So the rich are God? Explains why so many people worship them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They created basically everything in the economy? What do you mean by that and what do you think "economy" means?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was sarcsm, I'm pretty sure.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Thank you kindly for pointing it out. It seemed just realistic enough to be sincere.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Yet, it's still a fucking joke. 50 billion over TEN YEARS when the debt is 34T and we still have a 1.17T deficit.