Tax Code

"Dan S." wrote

I'll try:

TI

-ADJ

- (ID if > SD)

-PD

------------------ TI

-TC

------------------- TT

-FIT withheld

-ES Paid

-RTC

----------------- BD or OP

Linear would read: TI -ADJ - (ID if > SD) -PD = TI *TR +AMT -TC +OT TT -FIT withheld -ES Paid -RTC = BD or OP

I'm no mathematician, so I might have some flaw in my formula.

It's really just a "flat" tax in disguise.

1. Did you earn ,000.00?
2. Pay 65% of your income to the state over the course of the year

a.

I voted for H. Ross Perot

It's like going to DisneyWorld, but instead of handing your wallet over to the Nice Mouse, please to be giving it to the Nice Pelosi instead.

Formulaically, this would read (Total Income + all capital gains + all dividends/interest and assorted other inflows)*100% = your tax.

I still say that the accountants are THE best lobbyists in the world.

Paul Thomas, CPA, if I was in the mood, I'd turn the lights down low and reply with soft music, but you'll have to accept this instead::

I might be missing it, but I don't see depreciation of business equipment, captial gains/loss on the sale of a house but only if you haven't done it once in the last X number of years, or my cousin fred's disallowed business deductions because his hunting grounds were declared a hobby because they lost money 3/5 year running.

It's probably there. Like I said, I'm probably just missing it.

"Dan S." wrote

It's all part -n- parcel of TI.

You didn't ask how to compute TI. That computation is more problematic because of all the potential components.

You're kinda like asking for a recipe for chili, which depending on how many people you ask, may have over 100,000 possible ingredients to varying degrees.

"CheeseHusker dos" wrote

But we don't have to lobby at all. Congress does a good enough job making business for us without our input.

Every time they "simplify" the tax code my business goes up.

Indeed....and if business should slow for some reason b/c things are complicted enough, you can simply turn to FASB to issue some new decree or interpretation.

I used to be askairt of lawyers....

"CheeseHusker dos" wrote

Wow. Shows what you actually know. FASB has no impact on tax laws at all.

Who said anything about tax law? Changing fair value interpretations creates plenty of work w/o changing the law at all....

"CheeseHusker dos" wrote

Dan did. It's the topic of this set of posts which began about 11 pm last night. Is your attention span that short?

Your reply ~to~ Dan, just this morning, implied "taxes" and "tax code" and that somehow "accountants are THE best lobbyists in the world" presumedly in that they are the ones - and maybe the only ones - pimping Congress for changes in the tax laws.

In the financial statements - yes. That still has nothing to do with taxes or the tax code.

In fact, if an accountant prepares financial statements on the income tax basis of accounting, the FASB interpretations on fair value accounting don't apply.

Is this your first time on teh internet? Since when does a chatroom conversation stay strictly on topic?

Pfffft - I see the issue here. English is not your first language, is it?

Oh - that's right. Accountants don't work for corporations at all...

"CheeseHusker dos" wrote

Sice right before you changed it after the fact.

Consider it amortized.

It may not be possible to reduce it to a "simple mathematical formula" because, among other things, you have to calculate things like "what do you do if your income is in the "partial IRA deduction" range and you have Social Security income - your taxable Social Security affects how much of your IRA is deductible, but the deductible amount of your IRA determines how much of your Social Security is taxable! (I'm not sure about this, but I think the rule in this case is, you figure out what your IRA deduction would be if you paid the maximum tax on your Social Security, then calculate your actual taxable Social Security based on that number, then calculate your actual IRA deduction based on that amount of taxable income.)

-- Don ___________________________________________________________

There are no solutions, only clarifications of the problems

I'm not seeing how you could not quantify that. i.e. x stays zero unless y is greater than z and a is part of TI only if age = b, etc..

Gibberish, I know, but it should be doable.

I'm sure there are unquanifiable case rulings - but, I can't think of what one would be right now.