This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Government Admits Health Care Bill is a "Tax" ... Oh, and the Bill Tracks and Taxes Physical Gold Transactions
Even the government is now admitting that the health care bill is a tax.
As the New York Times pointed
out on July 16th:
When Congress required most
Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied
that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama
administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise
of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power
to regulate interstate commerce.
Administration officials say
the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the
health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged
in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most
Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting
in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help
them pay premiums.
In a brief defending the law, the Justice
Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay
the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.
Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would
exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the
department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court
has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by
using its power to regulate commerce.
And as ABC notes
today, the bill contains a stealth provision requiring tracking - and
thus tax reporting - of physical gold transactions:
[The health care legislation contains] a
scarcely noticed tack-on provision to the law that puts gold coin
buyers and sellers under closer government scrutiny.***
Section
9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will amend the
Internal Revenue Code to expand the scope of Form 1099. Currently, 1099
forms are used to track and report the miscellaneous income associated
with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed
individuals.
Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Form 1099s will become a
means of reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the purchases of all
goods and services by small businesses and self-employed people that
exceed $600 during a calendar year. Precious
metals such as coins and bullion fall into this category and
coin dealers have been among those most rankled by the change.
This provision, intended to mine what the IRS deems a vast reservoir of
uncollected income tax, was included
in the health care legislation ostensibly as a way to pay for it.
***
So every time a member of the public sells
more than $600 worth of gold to a dealer, [Diane Piret, industry
affairs director for the Industry Council for Tangible Assets, a trade
association representing an estimated 5,000 coin and bullion dealers
in the U.S.] said, the transaction
will have to be reported to the government by the buyer.
***
The ICTA's Piret says identity theft is another concern because
criminals may set up shops specifically to extract personal information
that would accompany the filing out of a 1099.
The office of
the National Taxpayer Advocate, a citizen's ombudsman within the IRS,
issued a report June 30 that said the new rule "may present significant
administrative challenges to taxpayers and the IRS."
- advertisements -
do you seriously believe this?
that if someone US based said "I think blah blah" needs a bullet in the head, that the MIBs would be swooping round to see him?
that they could find him from here, and would go and see him for expressing an opinion freely? & how far would they travel? what about people in other countries?
if this is actually your reality in the states now, I definitely would be moving if I were you.
you may as well live in any dictator state mightn't you, one where theyre not quite so organized and militarily capable.
I quote myself. Yes, just advocating a specific individual would put him in danger of being investigated. A simple subpoena would get his name, etc.
If you don't believe this, then you are the one living in a fantasy world.
No threats that I saw, just a rhetorical question. When citizens are more of an enemy than pinko commies or islamo fascists, interesting times ahead.
What I meant by "close" is just naming one person who needs the prescribed treatment he suggests. One name will get him disappeared. "I think..." was an opinion, not a question. "Thoughts?", was the question, and it was seeking fellow travelers to comment -- not a rhetorical flourish. There is a lot of talk here about gov't oppression, etc. Who would know if he never showed up on ZH again? Besides that, he is just smart enough not to be able to spell "Captain".
I hear ya.
"Besides that, he is just smart enough not to be able to spell "Captain"."
As far as I know the sedition/espionage act has never been repealed from WWI. As far as I'm concerned anything put out in the public domain is...well, public ;-)
Be aware ZHer's.
Do I think he was?...yes I do.
.
The state legislatures can resort to "nullification" if they believe any federal law to be unconstitutional. And the power to tax does not supersede the constitution; it is one reason among many why we declared independence and wrote the constitution itself.
The governments argument is like a failed feedback loop in excel.
God, we are in trouble.
Indeed!
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com
God, I can't wait!
Thank you George Washington - Very informative -
I was wondering when this would come up.
And we must remember healthcare is a right...that you can be fined for.
The paper work will strangle business who comply. If they don't it's a built in gotcha.
Just imagine, the imperial federal government just passed a law that, as a landscape bidness owner who stops by the same gas station everyday to fill up his mowers & weed eaters will have to get the gas station owners tax id # and issue him a 1099.
What is that 12 bucks a day?
What a bunch of idiots.
Good post GW!
Re. guy buying gas for his lawn-mowing business:
See my post at the beginning of the comments. The practical application of this law - if it goes into effect - will likely be that the sellers track sales and issue a 1099 for everyone who buys more than $600 a year from them.
If things don't shake out that way, then sales of accounting software are going to go up. The sellers will put their tax i.d. # on the sales slip and the buyer will key that information into their accounting software - for all purchases. At the end of the year, you sort on tax i.d. # and any purchases more than $600 get sent a 1099.
The implementation of the law has not been worked out yet. I'm guessing that it won't ever be implemented.
Mornin Richard,
"See my post at the beginning of the comments. The practical application of this law - if it goes into effect - will likely be that the sellers track sales and issue a 1099 for everyone who buys more than $600 a year from them."
That's not the way I understand it. The way I understand it is the buyer of the product or service who is engaged in business has the obligation to track and report...not the seller. I find it difficult to expect the young cashier at the gas station working for the owner is going to be able to keep up with people and transactions. The seller would have his income, less expenses, already reported (the gas sold) on his 1040/2553 as an S-Corp.
Much has been bandied about regarding this in the media. Without sorting through a 2,000 page bill, would you have a link that pulls the pertinent passage under discussion?
I find it difficult to expect the young cashier at the gas station working for the owner is going to be able to keep up with people and transactions.
Your example is a good one because of the type of transaction it is. If I shop at Staples with a Staples card, they already keep track of everything I buy and they know who I am. In this type of transaction, it would be very simple for them to tell the IRS that I (with name and address) bought more than $600 worth of goods and also provide me with a record of my total purchases for the year so that I can submit a 1099 to the IRS for my purchase. Staples could send me a pre-printed 1099, or they could e-mail me the data and I could print my own 1099.
On the other hand - if I buy things from Staples without using the Staples card, the IRS will not be able to determine that I bought anything from Staples based on what Staples reports to them (because Staples itself does not know that I bought anything there). In other words - if I have to report my Staples purchases, and if I buy without using a Staples card, the IRS will have no idea that I have to report anything. (The IRS would know from my tax return that I had business expenses. But they couldn't determine that I needed to submit any 1099s just from that.) The same would be even more true of your gas station example. If I don't tell the retailer who I am at the time of purchase, the IRS will never know I purchased anything. How, then, can they enforce this new 1099 rule? The answer is, they can't. Because this is true, I'm certain that the conversation going on right now in the Treasury Department and across industry will quickly settle on this as the issue to be solved in writting the regulations that tell the world how to obey the 1099 law that Congress passed. And they are likely going to write regulations that takes away any loophole for customers to avoid detection when they buy things and don't give the IRS a 1099. How can they close this loophole? (Loophole is probably not the right word, but I'm using it for now.) The only way they can close this loophole is to force all buyers to identify themselves to all sellers. Because, if the seller does not know who you are so they can report it to the IRS, the IRS will never have any knowledge that you owe them a 1099.
Think through the rest on your own. I've given you what you need to know. The 1099 law exists. Assuming it doesn't get cancelled, someone has to write regulations that will implement the law - that will tell the public how to comply with the law. That hasn't been done yet. It is being worked on now. And the only answer that makes any sense is to create regulations that require all buyers to identify themselves to all sellers, and then let the sellers comply with the law. Once the seller tells the IRS who bought what, the buyers will be forced to comply out of self-interest. That is, the buyer knows that the IRS knows the buyer owes them a 1099. So the buyer will comply. But if the IRS already knows because the seller told them, the IRS my drop the requirement for the buyer to file a 1099. At that point, it would be redundant for the buyer to submit a 1099 - telling the IRS something it already knows.
When the folks who have to implement the 1099 law that congress passed think things all the way through, it will be obvious that the IRS cannot enforce the law unless all buyers are required to identify themselves to all sellers. It only takes a little idle speculation to quickly get from this truth to some number that starts with 666. If the buyer has to identify himself to every seller, it will become cumbersome carrying around all the different sellers' cards. Better to just have one number that accesses personal information in a centralized database, and use that number to identify yourself to all sellers. But, if you cannot buy anything without identifying yourself to the seller, and if you have left your number at home and don't remember it, you won't be able to buy anything. What if you are about ready to run out of gas and you can't remember your number? A little chip under the skin with your number encoded on it should take care of this problem nicely. Assuming that the seller has the appropriate scanner.
Do you think there will be any uproar when it dawns on folks that the government has passed a law that cannot be enforced unless the government further forces every buyer to identify himself to every seller? What part of free-market economics is that? If this scenario bothers you, now is the time for you to support the folks who are suing the government to overturn this law. If at least the 1099 law does not get overturned, we are in for some very interesting times.
I'm being very general in what I said here about the 1099 law and it's application, in order to make some general points that are valid. Please lets don't quibble over minor details. It is a complicated subject that will probably affect all of us more than we can know at the moment (unless it is cancelled). I'm trying to give a general overview of a point that G.W. didn't emphasize. I'm not trying to quote the law and all of its implications in lawyerly detail here. And no one should think that I am being facetious, or speaking with tongue in cheek, in anything I have said in these two post.
It's a freedom issue for me.
Maybe more than you think.
Let's get two points out of the way first:
First - There are laws on the books at both the Federal and State level that are not being enforced. So it is possible that this law was passed, but it will never have regulations written for it. Or the regulations will be written but never enforced. However, the act of passing the law sets the precedent for requiring 1099's from taxpayers. That precedent may be useful later.
Second - this law is primarily directed at small business owners. It is supposedly going to bring to light mucho dollars in unpaid taxes by me that can help pay for the Medical Insurance bill that was passed. But the stuff I buy for my business reduces my tax liability so I am going to include those expenses on my tax return. How does sending the IRS a 1099 help uncover more money for them in this situation? The 1099 simply tells them what I have already placed on my tax return. My tax bill goes up if I don't place this information on my return, so I am definately going to include it. I don't need the threat of a 1099 to force me to do it. But what if I am reporting more business expense than I actually spent. Now I am costing the IRS money because I am reducing my tax burden more than it should be reduced. But how does the 1099 requirement bring this situation to the attention of the IRS? It doesn't. I don't have to report purchases less than $600 at any given vendor - which means the IRS is not going to have independent verification of whether I actually spent that money. So I can still cheat the IRS, even tho I am willingly submitting the required 1099s.
Stating those two points brings me now to the point that I made briefly further back in this thread. The current 1099 law is not going to uncover signifiant hidden unpaid taxes from the people it is directed at. But it is a first step in getting people accustomed to the idea that joe citizen has to account for - not just his income - but also his spending. If requiring taxpayers to account for their spending does not get struck down on constitutional grounds, the Feds will have established a precedent for later extending this requirement to everybody, for all purchases. And it is at this point that government can probably uncover significant unpaid taxes. Particularly if it is the sellers who are required to submit the 1099s (per my discussion in my posts directly above here). If my W2 or whatever tells the IRS that I earned 75,000 last year, but the cumulative totals of the 1099s submitted for my purchases totals $150,000, the IRS probably has good reason to check and see if I have actually reported all of my income. I think it is this scenario that they are aiming for, and the current 1099 law is simply a first step.
If dancing naked in front of men is a form of protected speech, then certainly we should be able to convince the SCOTUS that spending money is also a form of protected speech. I can't imagine that requiring joe citizen to tell the Feds how much money he spends at what vendors is constitutional. But then, most of what I have believed true of governments and citizens and contracts and constitutional rights has been stood on it's head over the last five years. Over and out.
Bopping around the intertubes and stumbled on this from Jessie;
"And I have to wonder why the Democrats slipped this change into the health care bill essentially chasing small loopholes for what is really small change, 20 billions over ten years, when there are so many large loopholes yawning wide open for the use of their corporate benefactors and the super wealthy."
See my comment above about trying to make a "political number" instead of a rational financial number.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/07/health-care-bill-change...
Love the Thomas Paine quote as well.
Regards.
"Stating those two points brings me now to the point that I made briefly further back in this thread. The current 1099 law is not going to uncover signifiant hidden unpaid taxes from the people it is directed at. But it is a first step in getting people accustomed to the idea that joe citizen has to account for - not just his income - but also his spending. "
Exactamundo.
Those of us who have been around long enough have watched all this unfold over time. My frame of reference on this issue began when they passed the "any transactions through a bank over $10,000 are reported" law...ostensibly to catch drug dealers. Pure unadulterated horse shit.
"If my W2 or whatever tells the IRS that I earned 75,000 last year, but the cumulative totals of the 1099s submitted for my purchases totals $150,000, the IRS probably has good reason to check and see if I have actually reported all of my income."
Maybe, maybe not. Think of a cash flow statement. They may not be seeing earnings at all, they could very well be seeing 1099'd cash flow, that is, expense. Not profit or earnings. That was my lawn service guy analogy. He calls it an expense to purchase gasoline to engage in his business of cutting grass.
Just because a million dollars worth of anything was handled and 1099'd doesn't mean someone earned a million dollars. You have to remember, these people are stupid ;-)
"I can't imagine that requiring joe citizen to tell the Feds how much money he spends at what vendors is constitutional. But then, most of what I have believed true of governments and citizens and contracts and constitutional rights has been stood on it's head over the last five years."
Time to hit the reset button Richard.
It's coming. People feel it inside themselves. They know something is wrong but most can't quantify it.
When the state grows so large that they begin to treat everyone as wards of the state people withdraw their consent to be governed by them.
It has always been thus.
SeeYa
Well, I think we both know why it was in the bill.
That's part of the problem. When politics becomes involved with finance this is what happens.
It was put in the bill, in my opinion and others, to make "a number". A positive number was needed to offset the drag of Pelosi/Obama/whatever care.
Someone said X can be raised in taxes that are not collected now (without any proof I might add) in order to "meet" an arbitrary political number. In this case it was "under a trillion". They, of course, could care less about the unintended consequences of their actions because it was pure politics.
Witness Waxman ordering company CEO's to appear before his committee after they took the charge offs (as required by existing fiduciary duty & law) only to say...Gilda Radner-like...never mind...don't come and make me look like a fool...LOL.
My apocalyptic point is, all these unintended consequences accumulate over time to the point where money becomes obsolete. If, at some point in the future, Staples interacts with Visa and all transactions via a law, we are down to a "pure credit system" based on labor/wealth already earned appears in an account, where your paycheck is not converted to money at all. Your wages, after taxes, are loaded onto a card to be swiped and your "account" debited. Where is this account held? Who has control over it?
These are your wages.
There will be no starting over chances for anyone who made bad choices in life without being tracked down.
In other words, you have no control over your own after taxed labor/earnings.To throw into the gutter if you wish. To give to a wino on the street corner if you wish.
It's a freedom issue for me.
They know exactly how much I make down to the penny. They don't need to know how or where or on what I spend it on. I take personal offense that they would even, by design or by unintended consequence, push themselves into a position where they could know.
My earnings have been taxed once already.
Here is a point that not many people know: Congress passes laws that say thus and such shall happen. But they don't define how it is supposed to happen. Then the appropriate agencies put their heads together and write regulations and directives and such that tell the appropriate audience how to carry out the law. I've worked extensively with the Medicare folks. They are forever writting regulations that stipulate how doctors have to comply with some law that Congress passed. Then they postpone the date they established for beginning compliance. Then they postpone the date again. And then, in some instances, they cancel the regulation.
That is going to happen with this 1099 law. The new health-care bill says buyers are supposed to issue 1099s in specified circumstances. Now it is up to the agencies (IRS and Treasury, and others?) to write the regulations that spell out how the law is supposed to be carried out. I think those regulations are going to be revised, rewritten, postponed, redone again, postponed some more. And maybe outright cancelled if the adminstration changes hands.
So I am not at all certain that it will end up being the purchaser of goods and services who has to create the 1099. A little thought (which is going on now) will show that it makes more sense to have the seller create the 1099 in most cases. There may be some few instances where it makes more sense for the buyer to generate the 1099.
-----
My exposure to this is from the health care angle. There is a very vigorous conversation going on in the medical IT world about how this could possibly be implemented. I have a number of links to this discussion in the medical IT field, but I am not going to post them - as this thread would not best serve that type of conversation. You can find a lot of the conversation yourself by googling appropriate key words. All you have to do is find one or two articles - and the articles will have other keywords with which you can refine your search.
If you have a comment, please put it at the bottom of the next post - so that these two posts can stay together.
"healthcare is a right...that you can be fined for."
+100
;-)
An often overlooked elephant in a very small room in my opinion.
I mean, since when does a right that goes un-exercised for any period of time become a civil or criminal offense?
If we don't post once a day (freedom of speech) we are to be fined? Forced to post? What? If we don't hang with our friends once a day (freedom to associate) we will be fined? Write a letter to our congress critters once a day about what ever bugs us (right of petition for grievance) we will be fined?
What a crock.
To me it shows the utter desperation for revenue...or dementia.
I went into this Congress thinking it was the former, it has evolved into the latter.
Don't worry everyone, the shit will collapse when we hit around the 18-20 trillion dollar deficet mark. So that should only be like what, 4-5 months away?
it is time for open rebellion and regime change of the american state....it is as corrupt as romania's Ceau?escu who was justly and violently thrown from power.
Public execution too, as I recall (at least videotaped and released). My first real lasting impression re: the power of the mob.
And where exactly will you be when it starts? In the front lines firing away and taking fire? Or hiding somewhere safe until its all over while talking about it and egging others on the entire time?
the appropriate question is where will U b, and do U want to remain a slave or is true freedom worth dying for?
"Likewise, this government has a choice as to the type of revolution that will come, and
the degree to which it will be violent and destructive. Violence is not an implicit
component of revolution necessarily, but it becomes necessary when corrupt leaders and
governments remain intransigent and incorrigible. This, after all, was the belief of the
men some refer to as the “founding fathers”, and was the mechanism through which those
revolutionaries established their so-called democracy and overcame the perceived
tyranny of their time.
No distinction should be drawn between the perceived tyranny
faced then and the authentic tyranny the citizens of America face today. Accordingly,
revolution should not be viewed as an archaic and unrealistic fringe ideology, but instead
the obligation and right of any people engaged in resistance to unjust and spurious
governments."
from the essay "An Illusory Democracy;The True Nature of Things Within America"
Have fun storming the castle!
I'll be the one on the side of the road selling rocks and packets of gravel to you and your friends. I might even get some neato bumper stickers made up to sell with some nifty slogans as well.
And yeah, I dont believe anyone that says anything about rebellion here. All talk. Put up a real picture of yourself, or a link to one. When I see your dead carcass on the tv I'll admit that I was wrong and you had the guts to storm the castle and die in a furious blaze with your uzi's. I promise to have a drink/toast in your name every year on the anniversary of your death and admit I was wrong about your willingness to die in the name of whatever party/cause/flavor of freedom you believe in, while I live to a ripe old age with the gold that I bought ahead of the shit storm and survived whatever comes along.
Why? Lets say you and your side win. As soon as the principals are off the stage its over and it gets corrupted, again. Within a short time, the problems begin to creep in again. And soon you have a strange feeling that its all so familiar. Human nature. This battle has been fought so many times in the past, yet you believe that this time, here today, will be different. This time, we will throw off the foibles of our humanity and never fall prey to them again, or that we'll build the perfect system that cant be interfered with and will work forever! This might just be one of the reasons Jefferson referred to the whole revolution every generation.
You see, I think life is ok. I kind of enjoy living and using my brain to be ahead of things so I don't have to take up arms to survive or for redress.
Again, have fun storming the castle boys!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-3VxOqHI-4&feature=related
Imagine then a ship or a fleet in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but who is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and whose knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering—every one is of the opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation … - Plato
yes, it is clear ur brain is in use as it issues the command which allows u to speak...
however, u have confused the ability to speak with the capacity to formulate cogent postulates, ideas worthy of merit. "Life is ok"...yeah, lets c what ur outlook is when those 40 million people on food stamps increases to 60-70 million, or maybe ur superior intellect is capable of stopping bullets and hoards with no jobs, no resources, no homes, no food, and no hope. Ur myopia is more amusing than anything else as ur glib self centerdness denotes that u stupidly believe that u'll b able to just sit on the sidelines...guess u'll just paint some blood above ur door frame and social unrest will just pass u by...
many slaves, even when informed of their freedom, chose to remain on the plantation out of fear of the unknown - pitiful but to some extent understandable...
cowardice, and obsequiousness wrapped n a delusional aire of intellect is merely contemptable...enjoy ur servitude...
So why are you still here WRITING and not firing away at the govt with your rebellion? Or is it possibly talk. See, there are doers and talkers. Go do, stop talking then. Storm the castle. Quit wasting your time here.
Yeah, I guess if I thought it was going to be Armageddon then I'd be worried. Its not though. Its a depression and or coupled with a failure of paper currencies. Life survives and goes on.
Yeah, I must have forgotten about the hordes of people flowing like locusts throughout the USA in the Depression and leaving a trail of destruction the likes of which has not been seen since god destroyed Gomorrah.
But its nice to see you falling into the 'panic' mode of chicken little. Jesus, with 60-70 million homeless and starving zombies out there (so say you), there's no way you have enough ammo to save yourself, so you should probably just shoot yourself right now. I mean, the horror, the horror. Or are you now saying you have 60-70 million bullets?
no further response warranted................
then there wasn't any need to say it...
"significant administrative challenge" to the serfs in a police state run by Big Brother and his drones. Amen to rebellion.
I wonder how many new prisons will have to be built to accommodate all the people that will not comply?
They are called FEMA camps. I think they have 12 of them up and running now.
no comment necessary. just read them.
House of Representatives go to:
http://thomas.loc.gov
search: Bill Number: HR 645
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kbr-awarded-homeland-security-contract-worth-up-to-385m
Shankys avatar gives the number and his explanation is correct.
Well at this point almost no one has to worry. Bullion dealers say buyers out number sellers 100:1 or some such. Didja' hear about sending in the 1099's handwritten? Sounds like a plan. That should boost employment. God I hope this shit blows up soon. Again PLEASE China, dump your UST's NOW!
As it stands now, I am the seller and my clients are the buyers. As buyers of my services, my clients pay me and also issue the 1099, which I have to file with my tax return. Under the proposed setup, the sellers will keep track. At the end of the year, they submit total sales info (if over $600) to the IRS and a 1099 to the buyer. The buyer will be required to file the 1099 with his tax return. At this point, the 1099 only lists the total dollar amount of the sale. I don't think the law requires a listing of what was purchased. So, purchases from a PM store would only show up as X amount of dollars for PMs - without specifying specifically what was purchased. Unless there is a requirement for PM stores in the law that is not there for other stores. Can you imagine if stores like Staples had to itemize what was purchased on the 1099. The IRS would be overwhelmed with paper.
For most businesses who are purchasing supplies, this will be a non-issue - since they already report supply purchases as business expenses. And most businesses these days track consumer purchases. Therefore, say those who are working on implementing this, it will take only a minor adjustment to cash-register software to implement this. Since the sales data is already collected, the software will simply need to pull a customers name, address, and total sales onto a 1099 form. The big hit to stores like Staples and Office Max will be the costs of paper and stamps at the end of the year as they mail out 1099's to all their customers. For those who opt in, it will probably take the form of an e-mail to the customer, and the customer can print his own 1099.
It will be fairly simple for the IRS to detect when a seller has reported a sale and the buyer does not report the purchase. But this will mostly be a non-issue since small business are already reporting these purchases as business expenses. What I am curious about is how non-business purchases are going to be handled. I'd like to think it is none of the government's business how I spend my money. On the other hand, if the new 1099 reporting requirement shows that I am spending significantly more than what I have reported as income, I probably should expect a knock at my door. I expect the underground economy to pick up substantially if this actually goes into effect.
There is much being written about implementing this proposal in IT circles. I'll be surprised if we don't see business lobby groups get this repealed before it takes effect. At least the requirement to report non-business expenses.
Tracking gold sellers and purchasers, hmmmmm it must be to catch terrorists. Everyone should know what this is, it's not only another revenue stream for the IRS (which is funny because aren't the gold sellers who buy the gold already paid taxes, and also made the people buying the gold pay taxes also?) but a way that they can know who have or had gold via a paper trail and so when the law comes down in the near future that you can't own gold except for a certain amount of coins and/or some jewelry, they will know who has it and go for it. And it will be impossible to deny because they will say where's your gold or silver etc., and you will say I lost it or it was taken etc, but the govt. will play hardball and say if you don't give it up we will confiscate your house or whatever is of value in your domicle etc. etc. etc..
They are getting ready.
does that mean that I have to report my gold dental caps so they know where to look? I mean they are taking the food from my mouth now, why not my teeth too.