Virtual Coffee Break - Chat

Good grief, Dubois, you really are quite the philosopher... 🙄

amberdrifter14 said:Good grief, Dubois, you really are quite the philosopher... 🙄

Honestly, let those of us who have been hanging around here forever just tease each other a little—and maybe indulge in some nonsense—because this topic feels like it's meant for a tiny inner circle of people who absolutely have to deal with it, even if they really don't want to. It's basically a "help me, help myself" situation, or if all else fails, may God help us. As if being screwed over by the government wasn't enough already...

P.S. There are plenty of other topics about accounting that are much more suited for the geniuses among us...

Apis... I even asked the admin, so come on... how about an "Accounting 101 for Beginners" thread??

Here’s the situation:
Dividends paid out based on final accounts between 2005 and 2012 were tax-free. They should have stayed that way, too.
But since the federal treasury was running on empty, the geniuses in Washington decided they needed to tax those payouts just to fill the coffers.
They fought it twice at the Supreme Court, and finally, the court struck down the very articles allowing them to tax it.
In plain English? If you haven't distributed dividends from that specific period yet, do it now. There is absolutely zero income tax or surtax applicable to those years when you pay them out!
However, if you already paid them out—specifically between March 2013 and July 2014—and you actually paid the tax... well, don't hold your breath. Nobody is giving that money back. Too bad!
And if you happened to pay them out during that same window (March 2013 to July 2014) but skipped the taxes you were supposed to pay? You still owe it. Every cent.

Jessica Grant56 said:Honestly, let those of us who have been hanging around here forever just tease each other a little—and maybe indulge in some nonsense—because this topic feels like it's meant for a tiny inner circle of people who absolutely have to deal with it, even if they really don't want to. It's basically a "help me, help myself" situation, or if all else fails, may God help us. As if being screwed over by the government wasn't enough already...

P.S. There are plenty of other topics about accounting that are much more suited for the geniuses among us...

Apis... I even asked the admin, so come on... how about an "Accounting 101 for Beginners" thread??

Dubois, just head down to the IRS and cite some random amendment—that should fix everything right up 🤣
Grab that red card the referee pulls out during a Yankees game and just hand them all out to everyone 🤣

Carol Price4 said:Dubois, just head down to the IRS and cite some random amendment—that should fix everything right up 🤣
Grab that red card the referee pulls out during a Yankees game and just hand them all out to everyone 🤣

Listen, ma'am—if I'm heading down there, I'll be picking up something else entirely. I just have to make sure nobody catches me in the act.

Richard Howard55 said:Here’s the situation:
Dividends paid out based on final accounts between 2005 and 2012 were tax-free. They should have stayed that way, too.
But since the federal treasury was running on empty, the geniuses in Washington decided they needed to tax those payouts just to fill the coffers.
They fought it twice at the Supreme Court, and finally, the court struck down the very articles allowing them to tax it.
In plain English? If you haven't distributed dividends from that specific period yet, do it now. There is absolutely zero income tax or surtax applicable to those years when you pay them out!
However, if you already paid them out—specifically between March 2013 and July 2014—and you actually paid the tax... well, don't hold your breath. Nobody is giving that money back. Too bad!
And if you happened to pay them out during that same window (March 2013 to July 2014) but skipped the taxes you were supposed to pay? You still owe it. Every cent.

Look, Richard Howard55, you can't really explain things to me by assuming I actually know what's going on... You know I'm one of those people who has no clue but acts like I do. (And if I ever say something that sounds smart, just know I called Carol Price for backup!) So I'm asking simply, layman-to-layman, without being crude: are you talking about that 12% that had to be paid at the moment of the dividend payout??? You know, back when the vibe was "hurry up before they catch you with that new law" (the one those geniuses dreamed up). If that's what you mean, I'm terrified because I think I actually paid some out before the authorities decided to swoop in... If you're talking about something else, then I'm completely lost and totally innocent here. As it stands, I've paid out maybe $1,000 in dividends, while they technically owe me a bit more, but... it's the end of July and I haven't seen a single cent of any tax refund. Is it just me, or are they pulling our legs?

P.S. Honestly, let them go to hell, God bless. At least the masterminds behind this heist are whispering about it in the shadows, which makes my conscience feel a little lighter!

And honestly, God help them all—I hope they wreck their Audis and whatever other junk they buy with that money, since business is clearly booming for them! Who's next after the Department of Justice, Exelon, HAC, or Amtrak? Just a few hundred million dollars... just enough to balance the scales for everyone they robbed.

Jessica Grant56 said:Look, Richard Howard55, you can't really explain things to me by assuming I actually know what's going on... You know I'm one of those people who has no clue but acts like I do. (And if I ever say something that sounds smart, just know I called Carol Price for backup!) So I'm asking simply, layman-to-layman, without being crude: are you talking about that 12% that had to be paid at the moment of the dividend payout??? You know, back when the vibe was "hurry up before they catch you with that new law" (the one those geniuses dreamed up). If that's what you mean, I'm terrified because I think I actually paid some out before the authorities decided to swoop in... If you're talking about something else, then I'm completely lost and totally innocent here. As it stands, I've paid out maybe $1,000 in dividends, while they technically owe me a bit more, but... it's the end of July and I haven't seen a single cent of any tax refund. Is it just me, or are they pulling our legs?

P.S. Honestly, let them go to hell, God bless. At least the masterminds behind this heist are whispering about it in the shadows, which makes my conscience feel a little lighter!

And honestly, God help them all—I hope they wreck their Audis and whatever other junk they buy with that money, since business is clearly booming for them! Who's next after the Department of Justice, Exelon, HAC, or Amtrak? Just a few hundred million dollars... just enough to balance the scales for everyone they robbed.

Yeah, that’s exactly the issue.
They tried to tax it as capital gains, even for profits earned in years before that specific law even existed.
The way it used to work, they taxed every single dividend payout, but then the Supreme Court stepped in and struck down that part of the law. They ruled that you can only apply capital gains tax to profits made after the law in force actually took effect, not on money earned in the years leading up to it.

I found the logic you laid out in your post pretty amusing, though.

Jessica Grant56 said:Sometimes you can see the big picture through the tiny details—like this absolute gem of a sentence from our local IRS office:

- during the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 is not taxable is subject to capital gains tax.

And seriously, if "is not taxable is" is the phrase, then clearly some clerk dropped a comma in there by mistake—honestly, it feels like they don't even know why they showed up to work today.

So, for those of you who actually understand this stuff, could you explain what this is supposed to mean? Is it "is" or is it just "total nonsense"? And please, give it to me straight—no bureaucratic jargon allowed.

🤣

Henry Edwards33 said:Yeah, that’s exactly the issue.
They tried to tax it as capital gains, even for profits earned in years before that specific law even existed.
The way it used to work, they taxed every single dividend payout, but then the Supreme Court stepped in and struck down that part of the law. They ruled that you can only apply capital gains tax to profits made after the law in force actually took effect, not on money earned in the years leading up to it.

I found the logic you laid out in your post pretty amusing, though.

🤣

Well, thanks to you and the courts!! I finally get it now. (Richard Howard55 is probably out somewhere by the coast, chasing leeches or something.) But looking at the big picture, not much has really changed—I'll still be getting squeezed like a lemon starting from 2014. When I sat down last year to crunch all my numbers—income, expenses, contract taxes, and this ridiculous "tax on taxes for fools"—it felt like it might be better off just taking up an illegal side hustle ironing towels on the black market. Even AT&T is selling electricity cheaper these days, so... should I go for it? They'd probably tell me I'm dreaming.

It makes me miss the "good old days"... well, the past, anyway—back when the power companies ran on coal or wood, or whatever you call it... You could actually strike a deal with them to make sure things stayed nice and warm. And back then, we didn't have all these endless cycles of ministers, presidents, and those corporate tycoons—I can't even remember their names.

But if we look even further back, we see the same kind of characters running the country today. The only difference is they weren't collecting taxes back then; they were extracting tribute—it’s the same old rooster in a different package. And the people always sing the same song: "Bread, bread, Lord, we haven't seen any meat in ages..." Well, at least we have one advantage here—you grab a handful of wild greens, boil them up good, and there's your fish soup; you don't even need salt, everything's already in there.

Ugh!! Henry, keep going. We're headed straight into a dark tunnel...

Oh, and how on earth are you interpreting IT IS NOT TAXABLE??? Are you losing your mind?

Jessica Grant56, I’m still sweating my life away out here on the asphalt, and I haven't even started the hunt for a spot on the beach next week yet. 🙂

Richard Howard55 said:Jessica Grant56, I’m still sweating my life away out here on the asphalt, and I haven't even started the hunt for a spot on the beach next week yet. 🙂

I honestly have no comment, though this really does demand one. Especially since whenever I ask a simple question, all I get is whatever nonsense they post on the Department of Justice website—so, thanks for nothing.

Quoting the text from the Department of Justice website:

"Payout of dividends to an individual (member, shareholder) that have been earned:
- For the year 2000 and earlier, it is not subject to capital gains tax
- In the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, it is subject to capital gains tax—a 12% capital gains tax plus any applicable local surcharges based on the residence of the individual receiving the payout
- In the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, it is not subject to capital gains tax.
- In 2012 and later, it is subject to capital gains tax—a 12% capital gains tax plus any applicable local surcharges based on the residence of the individual receiving the payout."

So, look—my sleepy colleagues, aside from Richard Howard55 who has the very important job of finding a spot in the sun (man, it was brutal today...), please pay close attention to the underlined part. I am actually challenging you to explain: IT IS NOT SUBJECT ... what is that even supposed to mean???

Oh, wait—maybe I'm just being dense again. Maybe I missed something obvious? "It is subject to capital gains tax - 12% capital gains tax..." Please, someone give me a translation for that minus sign. Does "-12%" mean they’re going to give me 12% back when they pay my dividends?? Or was that supposed to be a plus sign? (In which case, nothing changes, and the government still takes their cut, right??) Honestly, I feel like I'm getting closer to a "eureka" moment, because at this rate, anyone would lose their mind—especially at +33 C. Definitely.

A little quiz for the accountants and data nerds:

I really should sit down and tally up how many bullets were fired and how many people were killed on TV this past Saturday. I’ve got the television blaring in the background while I’m here crunching numbers—and honestly, at least 60% of the time, someone is shooting, breaking stuff, or blowing things up. Even Batman is being relatively polite; there was just one train derailment, a castle went up in flames, and a few cars went flying through the air.

It was all constant carnage over on Fox, then you switch to local news and they’re brawling, then you flip to the first channel—man, they’re killing people off with viruses, all quiet and subtle. Luckily, they’re singing about it on the other one... but I usually just use the radio for that. Our American TV stations have become so non-violent it actually gives me a headache, so I ended up turning off the gunfights while there were still a few survivors left. Maybe I mixed up my combatants, but you get the gist. Oh, and a couple of ships went flying, too...

So, there you have it. Don't go complaining that things are rough here in the States; locally, we only lose a few people a day because someone drove drunk, or high, or had a heart attack, or lost their license, or maybe some stranger gave them a dirty look and... well, they died. It's not like we have organized crime syndicates doing it.

Still, once the shooting finally stops (they’re still fighting, but I turned it off), you really have to weigh who's worse: all these actors pretending to kill people, or our own government pretending to be a government. Or even that other guy, who wishes he were in charge but is definitely worse than the ones who actually are. It’s a madhouse, if you ask me...

Jessica Grant56 said:I honestly have no comment, though this really does demand one. Especially since whenever I ask a simple question, all I get is whatever nonsense they post on the Department of Justice website—so, thanks for nothing.

Quoting the text from the Department of Justice website:

"Payout of dividends to an individual (member, shareholder) that have been earned:
- For the year 2000 and earlier, it is not subject to capital gains tax
- In the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, it is subject to capital gains tax—a 12% capital gains tax plus any applicable local surcharges based on the residence of the individual receiving the payout
- In the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, it is not subject to capital gains tax.
- In 2012 and later, it is subject to capital gains tax—a 12% capital gains tax plus any applicable local surcharges based on the residence of the individual receiving the payout."

So, look—my sleepy colleagues, aside from Richard Howard55 who has the very important job of finding a spot in the sun (man, it was brutal today...), please pay close attention to the underlined part. I am actually challenging you to explain: IT IS NOT SUBJECT ... what is that even supposed to mean???

Oh, wait—maybe I'm just being dense again. Maybe I missed something obvious? "It is subject to capital gains tax - 12% capital gains tax..." Please, someone give me a translation for that minus sign. Does "-12%" mean they’re going to give me 12% back when they pay my dividends?? Or was that supposed to be a plus sign? (In which case, nothing changes, and the government still takes their cut, right??) Honestly, I feel like I'm getting closer to a "eureka" moment, because at this rate, anyone would lose their mind—especially at +33 C. Definitely.

dubo, just let our dear Richard Howard55 take a break... 😁

And you—just grab those files and head down to the IRS. 🤣



Ugh, I am being so unserious lately...🤣

Man, I just realized I listed the range as 2005–2012 instead of 2005–2011.
Poor Jessica Grant56, apparently if I’m being vague, I might as well be wrong too! 😍
My bad, everyone... I clearly need a vacation or something. 🙂

If I'm going to go fight with the IRS over some paperwork, I should at least have my facts straight.

Carol Price4 said:dubo, just let our dear Richard Howard55 take a break... 😁

And you—just grab those files and head down to the IRS. 🤣



Ugh, I am being so unserious lately...🤣

Lately?!? Hahaha!

Richard Howard55 said:Man, I just realized I listed the range as 2005–2012 instead of 2005–2011.
Poor Jessica Grant56, apparently if I’m being vague, I might as well be wrong too! 😍
My bad, everyone... I clearly need a vacation or something. 🙂

If I'm going to go fight with the IRS over some paperwork, I should at least have my facts straight.

Come on, honey, get moving! Get off that hot pavement before you melt—actually, scratch that, you aren't exactly a kitten on warm asphalt anymore, are you? We've got a few beautiful sunny days coming up, but if you're prone to being a bit flighty, you better grab a 100-pound weight just to stay grounded. And just in case a storm rolls in, maybe gather some herbs—though honestly, you've always been pretty steady. As for the money? With the kind of work we do, maybe try keeping those diet charts handy, but please, just drink plenty of water. Whatever happens, happens.

Seriously... are you reading tea leaves or something?!?!? 😍

Hey everyone, I’m finally heading out for some much-needed time off. Technically, I'm already mentally checked out as of Monday. I really hope you all get a chance to unplug and enjoy yourselves too... just for a bit, forget about the accounting, the finances, and the tax codes...☕

Richard Howard55 said:Seriously... are you reading tea leaves or something?!?!? 😍

Come on, those cheap glass balls don't work. (They're Made in China, after all). You need actual crystal for that...

Jose Turner57 said:Hey everyone, I’m finally heading out for some much-needed time off. Technically, I'm already mentally checked out as of Monday. I really hope you all get a chance to unplug and enjoy yourselves too... just for a bit, forget about the accounting, the finances, and the tax codes...☕

Come on, you too—get out there! You're looking at three or four days of beautiful sunshine mixed with sudden rain, all while hitting those 90-degree temps.
A little tip: grab some good vacuum-seal bags for your clothes. Swimming in the ocean while it's raining is pure magic... but trying to swim in those swollen creeks or near roads where flash floods are literally stripping the asphalt away? Yeah, that's a death wish.

Honestly, I would’ve been thrilled when that first guy suggested cutting his high-rollers' salaries so they wouldn't be pulling in over $10,000... (Yeah, right—that would have given me some sweet little anti-bureaucracy satisfaction...)

But then the second group rolls in, claiming the first group is just talking nonsense and won't actually take a dime from anyone. Apparently, they need that entire army of slackers (all due respect to those who actually put in the work!) just to hide a few kickbacks and cloud the view of a nice sunset. If we even get to see one these days... our tourists will have already fled the country...

And in the end, I'm the loser here. Because Joe Smith probably gets five times more monthly cash from the government than I do, being just your average, quiet little small business owner. To the ministers—starting with the one who basically climbed his way up through nepotism and moving down the line—I'm just a smuggler, a crook, or some shady character. And Joe has to make four times more than you guys, my colleagues—shame on you—because you're all busy covering for people like me and those other state-sponsored hustlers instead of just reporting that I missed one single receipt. Well, the power went out, and there were thunderstorms or whatever. It's like they've filled Saint Elijah the Thunderer's suitcase to the brim...

Oh, wait... Actually, I am kind of impressed by our country—the government, the President, the ruling party, and especially the opposition (the "background players")—who have sunk so low that they're looking for penny-pinchers in paradise to send them bills just so they can collect $100,000 in rewards... What a joke of a country, this whole lottery system and everyone who dreamed it up!! We really are the bottom of the barrel in Europe—not just because people actually dodge those miserable tax bills, but because the government literally tries to buy its citizens whenever there's a lottery involved. But hey—they're leaving $20,000 for the inspectors, whose new job will be watching the crowds perform their little dramas when Faith, Moe, or Paul walk into an ice cream shop, a pizzeria, or maybe a souvenir store. All that theater and acting is definitely worth twenty grand per head. Though I bet FedEx swears he doesn't sell even that much drama in a whole day.