Posts by Joshua Wright2

Peter Diaz3 said:If we are being honest here, how many truly impressive men actually exist in their 40s? Looking at the hundred parents dropping kids off at soccer practice, I’d be lucky to pick out five men in that age bracket who actually earn the title of "a catch." Everyone else seems small, lethargic, neglected, with crumbs stuck to their shirts and nothing but a spare tire around their waist.

What defines an impressive man? It’s someone standing well over 6'3", hitting the gym at least three times a week, watching what he eats, and possessing actual style. He should hold a position of influence, possess charm and intellect, always smell great, drive a quality car, and have a perfect smile. In your 40s, those types make up maybe 1% of the population. And believe me, those men are constantly being pursued.

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

To be that specific type of man in one's 40s while also having a family, one would essentially require a wife who manages every single aspect of the household—essentially running the entire estate—while focusing exclusively on child-rearing. She would also need a constant rotation of support from nannies or extended family. Meanwhile, the husband focuses solely on his professional ascent and his physical maintenance. Even under those highly specific circumstances, he would still find himself with very little free time for any extracurricular indiscretions.

mistybison said:We have become far too individualistic, losing that essential drive toward the common good and the dream of building a better society for everyone.

Well, bravo... you hit the nail on the head. We have indeed lost that pursuit of the common good and the dream of a better society for all. But one must ask why. Did we simply realize it was a utopia? Or have we undergone a sort of social devolution? I am curious to know what others think.

Why hasn't this brand of superficial spirituality evolved into anything substantial? Instead, it seems to have regressed into something purely primal, materialistic, and ultimately hollow...

I suspect you might be missing the core issue here. While the whole "indigo child" or crystal-healing craze certainly qualifies as cheap spirituality, the real driver was the romanticized parental delusion—the belief that their special child would somehow engineer a better world. That idealism has since evaporated.

The crux of the matter lies in the shifting worldview of the parents themselves:
A) The parent of an "indigo" child envisioned a new spiritual era defined by universal love, shared resources, and a world devoid of suffering or sorrow.
B) The parent of today’s child focuses on the immediate gratification of becoming an overnight billionaire, prioritizing self-interest and social status above all else. It is a "look at me" mentality where empathy is discarded unless it serves one's own image of success.

Growing up, I remember hearing endless talk about "Indigo children." Then, if I recall correctly, the narrative shifted toward "Crystal children," followed by a whole litany of other supposed special generations destined to arrive. Even as a kid, I found the whole concept somewhat whimsical, yet there was an undeniable sense of romance to it all. On one hand, parents were using these labels to coddle their children with a sense of uniqueness; on the other, there was this beautiful, lofty implication that these children possessed a certain essence that would eventually save or spiritually uplift the world, making it a better place for those who follow. It felt like a reflection of a parent’s soul—a vision of the kind of world they truly hoped to see tomorrow.

Yet, as the years have quietly slipped by, these stories and aspirations seem to have evaporated. I cannot shake the impression that almost no one thinks about creating a more romantic, spiritual world anymore, nor do they believe their child will be the one to "save" it. Truthfully, our culture has become increasingly materialistic, consumerist, and driven by pure hedonism. We see more and more parents attempting to leverage their children for instant gratification, whether they are grooming them to become the next NFL superstar, a pop icon, or even the next Kardashians. The most melancholy aspect of this shift is how accurately it reflects the modern parent's own ambitions and their vision for their child's future. I am not suggesting this wasn't happening before, but today, this trajectory feels inevitable.

What has happened to us? What became of that sense of romance? What happened to our dreams?

I believe we first need to establish whether accounting should be classified as a science or a craft. If we settle that premise, our subsequent discussion will proceed without any unnecessary friction.

If we define it as a science, then we are essentially in a situation where hospitals have spent years being operated on by "skilled surgeons without degrees"... and every one of us knows at least one top-tier specialist who simply "learned the ropes" through experience, just as we all know someone with three degrees who can't even make a straight incision because they lack composure. So, what is the solution there?

On the other hand, if it is a craft, then there is no fundamental necessity for formal scientific education; everything can be learned through an apprenticeship, which is exactly how many people currently operate! In that case, what is the solution?

Therefore, I ask: what is accounting? Is it a science or a craft?

Furthermore, in my view, the greater issue regarding licensing pertains to the liability of the licensed accountant. I contend that the responsibility for the accuracy of a business owner's reports (the accounting portion) directly implicates the licensed professional in the responsibility for the underlying truthfulness of those reports (any potential manipulation by the entrepreneur), as the two are virtually inseparable. This effectively places the licensed accountant in a role similar to an IRS auditor or an internal supervisor for the firm whose reports they sign. I haven't been following the recent developments regarding licensing regulations closely, but if licensing is implemented, this specific aspect must be strictly regulated. It needs to be explicitly stated that a licensed accountant is solely responsible for preparing balance sheets and financial statements based on the documentation provided by the client, and that they bear no responsibility for the authenticity or accuracy of that underlying data. Of course, the practical application of such a distinction remains a significant question.

electricviper23 said:Personally, I don't find this contrary to business principles at all, because it comes down to the decision to provide a loan and the specific terms under which that loan is granted. If a corporation is doing exceptionally well—liquid, solvent, and perhaps working with a business partner who wants to borrow funds to invest or simply to survive due to temporary unpaid receivables—and those partners have shown mutual support and understanding for years. For instance, maybe that partner didn't call in a promissory note while the other was late on payments or paying outside of terms, etc. So, Xy situation... why shouldn't this one lend money without interest? On the contrary, it is business culture. It harms no one, and it contributes to something positive. Economics is economics, capitalism... whatever you want to call it. But again—behind every bit of capital, there are people. People who work and create, who sacrifice and survive. And therefore, it seems absurd to think this contradicts any principles, let alone the ones you listed. At least in my view.

This line of reasoning from the tax authorities makes absolutely no sense to me. I see no connection between those two actions... everything in business can be viewed strictly through the lens of corporate income tax, so they can't just manipulate it. What on earth does a corporation's purpose for taking out a loan have to do with lending money to someone else?! One might be relevant during a specific period of operations, while the other applies under totally different conditions and timeframes... I'm getting a bit worked up now, sorry, but I suppose I'm too highly educated to stomach this lack of logic😁🍿

Try walking into a Chase branch and asking for an interest-free loan; you will quickly see how they respond. I am not saying I agree with capitalism—heaven forbid—but it is currently the economic system we all inhabit, and its fundamental mechanism involves accumulation and the creation of surplus. Corporations are established specifically to operate, earn, and generate excess. While lending money without interest is theoretically commendable, it isn't in the spirit of capital formation. Even if you decide to give something away as a gift, the government will protect its interests and say, "Fine, go ahead and gift it, but I still want my cut of the sales tax and corporate income tax." At the core of the matter, whenever a corporation is formed with a specific owner, it must be understood that that individual is not the sole owner. If one looks realistically, the state effectively holds at least a 50% stake in that entity. This is because more than half of what an entrepreneur earns will eventually go to the government through various taxes and contributions. The state is essentially protecting its own equity, its sales tax, and its income tax... in essence, its share in the business.

electricviper23 said:Personally, I don't find this contrary to business principles at all, because it comes down to the decision to provide a loan and the specific terms under which that loan is granted. If a corporation is doing exceptionally well—liquid, solvent, and perhaps working with a business partner who wants to borrow funds to invest or simply to survive due to temporary unpaid receivables—and those partners have shown mutual support and understanding for years. For instance, maybe that partner didn't call in a promissory note while the other was late on payments or paying outside of terms, etc. So, Xy situation... why shouldn't this one lend money without interest? On the contrary, it is business culture. It harms no one, and it contributes to something positive. Economics is economics, capitalism... whatever you want to call it. But again—behind every bit of capital, there are people. People who work and create, who sacrifice and survive. And therefore, it seems absurd to think this contradicts any principles, let alone the ones you listed. At least in my view.

This line of reasoning from the tax authorities makes absolutely no sense to me. I see no connection between those two actions... everything in business can be viewed strictly through the lens of corporate income tax, so they can't just manipulate it. What on earth does a corporation's purpose for taking out a loan have to do with lending money to someone else?! One might be relevant during a specific period of operations, while the other applies under totally different conditions and timeframes... I'm getting a bit worked up now, sorry, but I suppose I'm too highly educated to stomach this lack of logic😁🍿

If we are talking about different periods, then fine: first pay back your own loan, and then lend from your surplus. However, if you are simultaneously taking out a loan with tax-deductible interest and then lending that same money interest-free to other companies, you are effectively stealing a slice of the government's cake, as you are reducing the profits that rightfully belong to the state. I am unsure what you find illogical about that. It is similar to other legal precedents in the tax code; for example, you cannot claim tax-deductible depreciation on an asset that does not, or cannot, generate sufficient revenue, even if it is being used. You cannot simply gift items from your inventory unless they are given to partners from whom you expect a significantly greater economic benefit "tomorrow" through the purchase of those same products... and so on.

electricviper23 said:This is news to me. I've had the IRS auditing my books plenty of times throughout my career, and they never once looked at it this way...😲😲has anyone else run into this before?

To begin with, from my personal perspective, lending money interest-free is fundamentally contrary to accounting standards, tax regulations, and ultimately, the very capitalist principles upon which corporations are built. However, if the law permits it, then it is acceptable.
Admittedly, for the first few years of my practice, the implications weren't entirely clear to me, but in my local area, this has become an increasingly common issue during audits. I would certainly welcome it if others could share their own experiences regarding this matter.
The reality of the situation is quite straightforward. You claim interest on a loan as a deductible expense to reduce your corporate income tax liability. Simultaneously, you provide a loan to another party without charging interest. The IRS will simply refuse to allow that deduction to lower your tax base unless you charge interest on the lent funds at a rate equal to what you are paying; otherwise, you are effectively increasing your taxable income. If you had used that cash to pay off your own bank loan instead of providing interest-free loans elsewhere, you wouldn't even have the interest expense to deduct, and your tax base would remain higher regardless.

Tyler Kelly2 said:Thanks for the input, everyone.
electricviper23—the corporation is giving a loan to a sole proprietorship (totally separate entity). I came across some info saying that in this setup, the sole proprietorship is treated just like an individual, which Jessica Gonzalez30 and Joshua Wright2 apparently confirmed. If there’s no interest at a minimum of 3%, it gets flagged as in-kind income—regardless of whether the person is an employee or not...

From what I can gather, I need to issue an invoice without sales tax to account for the interest. Are there any specific legal deadlines here—like monthly, or maybe within 15 days after the loan is repaid—that I have to hit when issuing the interest invoice?

At a minimum, you must do this once a year. You should perform the calculation as of December 31st, because that specific interest income must be recorded within the corresponding fiscal year to ensure the corporate income tax base is accurately increased.

I am in complete agreement with Jessica Gonzalez30 regarding small businesses; this logic simply does not apply to them.
However, even when dealing with larger corporations, one must exercise extreme caution. If a company providing a loan currently holds an outstanding credit line with a bank like JPMorgan Chase, the IRS will likely demand that the interest rate on the loan be set at a minimum level equal to their own borrowing costs. Now, you might ask why this is necessary. It comes down to a matter of proof: how can they demonstrate that the funds being lent out are actually sourced from the bank loan rather than their own liquid cash reserves? It is quite straightforward. If a firm lends money interest-free to another entity while simultaneously paying interest to its bank, it essentially subsidizes the borrower. They could have used those same funds to pay down their own debt and avoid interest altogether. Therefore, when managing loans between legal entities, if a company carries any form of bank debt, the IRS will certainly not permit an interest-free loan to another corporation.

Thomas Diaz8 said:I currently lease some commercial space for my business. I was wondering if I could write off improvements made to that property—for instance, installing new ceramic tile flooring—as a business expense? Since I am actually running my operations out of this specific location, I assume the investment should count toward my business costs, though I suppose I should be certain about how the IRS views this.

You are certainly allowed to depreciate investments made to someone else's fixed assets according to the standard rates. However, there is a specific complication regarding the income tax regulation 🙂 Namely, the IRS maintains the position that once your lease concludes, regardless of whether you invested in those tiles and depreciated them, those improvements remain the property of the landlord. Consequently, you effectively owe the owner the value of those improvements at fair market value when you vacate, since you cannot simply "take the tiles home" with you. It is a bit of an unfair situation; you are essentially allowed to expand the windows or install premium flooring to make your office more functional, but in the end, the landlord receives a space with increased value due to your investment, and you are required to invoice them for that value and pay the applicable sales tax if you are registered for it.