new 2012 1099 filing requirement

Sure. If the company pays the 501(c) baseball team for having purchased these uniforms, the company need not 1099 them.

If the company pays the uniform supplier direcly, they would 1099.

The IRS is seriously trying to reduce the volume of 1099s they would have to receive, so any suggestions to reduce this volume should be sent to them.

Reply to
Arthur Kamlet
Loading thread data ...

Or just send a 1099 if that's easier; it isn't illegal to send one to a corporation.

Seth

Reply to
Seth

Anyone have an idea what the CBO said this would raise? I looked at all the PDF's in

formatting link
1&bill590&filt_func=any&filt_committee=any&filt_paygo=0&filt_intergov=0&filt_doctype=any and searched for "9006" the name of the section. Found nothing. Sec.

9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements.
Reply to
removeps-groups

formatting link
1&bill590&filt_func=any&filt_committee=any&filt_paygo=0&filt_intergov=0&filt_doctype=any>

6th item on page 1 of the JCT Revenue Projection or by year starting in 2012 in billions: 0.4, 3.3, 2.0. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 Total 2012-2019: 17.1

formatting link

Reply to
Alan

Oops. Somehow I was looking at the wrong website.

Now how did they come up with these estimates? That's the billion dollar question. I can only think they have an estimate of how much people are under-reporting (but I'd like to see the research), or the additional tax preparers will pay more in income taxes. And it's strange that the first year revenue is so little, then it increases about 8 fold to 3.3 billion, then decreases, and routinely increases every year.

One thing that's strange

Reply to
removeps-groups

If you want to know about how the JCT process fro revenue estimates work, read this:

formatting link
It was written in 2004. As far as I can tell, it is probably no different today than it was in 2004.

Reply to
Alan

in2012in billions:

Well, maybe not so strange if you figure out there is some delay that comes from the startup process. In fact, by doing a bit of back- projection, one could see a progression of

1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 etc.

with a shift of 1.4 from the first year into the second. That at least makes the numbers work out.

Reply to
Tom Russ

in2012in billions:

Sorry, I'm not getting it.

Reply to
removeps-groups

in2012in billions:

The actual increase in revenue is 1.8 1.9 2.0 etc. However, 1.4 from the first year isn't collected until the second year.

Seth

Reply to
Seth

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.