h a l f b a k e r y
Free set of rusty screwdrivers if you order now.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
This whole time, I've been foolishly in the business of "sophocles, living, inc." paying way too much taxes.
Here's the scheme (forgive me if this is old, but I couldn't find it). Bear with the math. It's really not much, now (80% zero's after all...)
If I run a business, and the corporation
makes $10,000 revenue for the year, but has $9,000 expenses, the corporation gets taxed on the gain ($1,000), not the revenue ($10,000). If the same business has $10,000 in expenses, they have zero gains, and zero income tax. Many companies exploit this by writing off lots of expenses (building leases, meals, entertaining clients, etc).
So, it almost naturally follows, that I should incorporate my personal life. Let's say I make $10,000 for the year as a person. That person gets taxed on the full $10,000 income. But hey, that's not my NET! I have building leases, meals, & entertainment, just like a company.
Enter, "Sophocles, Inc." Mission Statement: "Provide a full and fruitful life for sophocles". The revenue is provided by putting sophocles to work. Track all his expenses (housing, meals, entertaining clients (friends)). That vacation in France? Totally in line with the mission statement of the business. So, if I simply spend all the money that I make, then my NET INCOME is zero. My income tax, as a business, is zero.
Aha, what about sophocles the person? Don't they still tax his wages? No, he gets no wage income. His employer pays "Sophocles, inc.", not "Sophocles the person", after all.
W-2 vs. 1099
http://www.topechel...acting/definiti.htm
[thumbwax, Apr 18 2006]
IRS Instructions for corporate tax return
http://www.irs.gov/...irs-pdf/i1120_a.pdf
[theircompetitor, Apr 18 2006]
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL.
E.g., http://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Perhaps you should be "The Sophocles Group", a not-for-profit 'organization'. It takes multiple people to incorporate. |
|
| |
Multiple people, yeah, I like it. Or, multiple people, all their own "inc". Just charge the wife rent to lower "Mrs. Sophocles, inc"'s net income, and then just be sure to spend the rent money on a flat-screen TV or similar "expense" to keep avoiding taxes. |
|
| |
Assuming your company pays sophocles no wages, I think you'll also qualify for unemployment benefits. |
|
| |
This can't possibly work, can it? |
|
| |
You'll get done for embezzlement...
;-) |
|
| |
It doesn't seem quite fair that corporations only have to pay taxes on their net gain, whereas we get taxed for everything. Twice, when you consider sales tax. |
|
| |
In what jurisdiction do you want to play this game [sophocles]?
There are always ways to reduce your tax income, even as a salaried employee. |
|
| |
My favourite thus far is the LAQC (Loss Attributing Qualifying Company) figure in New Zealand. A local NZ company with less than five shareholders opts to become an LAQC, all the directors must be personally liable for their share of the company's income tax (that's why you don't get many of these around!) but their advantage lies in being able to offset your earnings (yes, even your 9-to-5 salary) against your expenses (like an investment property that nominally loses you money whilst still appreciating in value through capital gains - CGs are not taxable in NZ). Done well, you would pay very little tax. Done really well, you can potentially claim a tax refund. |
|
| |
And, by the way, it's not "Tax Evasion" it's "Tax Minimisation" |
|
| |
sophocles, in the US that's called a subchapter S corporation. |
|
| |
World, what's really unfair is the double taxation of dividends. Or the estate tax. |
|
| |
Most corporate spend is actually translated into income for everyone from direct employees to service providers. So the fact that they tend to attempt to minimize net has very positive consequences for the economy. |
|
| |
But that arguement holds true for people as well. Imagine the economic boost if it made sense to spend as much as you make. |
|
| |
[tc] I read & was told that S corp, LLC, or inc was only benificial if you made over $150k or had legal liabilities you wanted to protect yourself from. |
|
| |
Would what you said really work for someone making less than $150K per year? |
|
| |
Hey, I'll sell you the right to claim me as a dependent on your tax return. (Since I'm not claiming anyone myself). We can split the savings. Any takers? |
|
| |
I'm not sure, but I think the amount you'd lose for self deduction wouldn't be made up by someone else's dependent deduction. |
|
| |
// whereas we get taxed for everything// |
|
| |
The solution of course is to allow people to live at work, and for workplaces to serve food. Then the firm gets added writeoffs, and you the person now have fewer taxed expenses (e.g. rent; food). |
|
| |
This is not a debate about whether corporations are good or bad. |
|
| |
This is simply an idea to say "if our government loves corporations more than people, then let the people become corporations." |
|
| |
[Worldgineer] is already stating the rest of what I was trying to get at. Thanks! (PS: <shameless plug> World, you must go check out my Pendulum Bridge. I figure you would have something to say there...</sp>) |
|
| |
yes, of course, [World], that's why tax cuts are stimulative to the economy. And, taking advantage of those benefits to a larger extent than is possible for people on W-2s is why so many people do in fact use "S" corporations. |
|
| |
but the cutoff for the benifit of this is at 150K USD/ year, right? |
|
| |
I can't see how, Zimmy. The fees for creating an LLC or a subchapter S are not high at all. Consult an accountant. |
|
| |
This has also been done in the UK, traditionally by IT Consultants and COBOL programmers to great effect over the Millenium. The income gets paid to zen_tom inc. and expenses are claimed etc. meanwhile, zen_tom inc. pays zen_tom esq. a minimal salary (under the tax threshold), but provides him with a company car, company house, subsidised living expenses etc. I believe however, that recent tax legislation (over the last 3-4 years or so) has served to make this particular dodge unworkable now. Instead, I've heard rumours of people who 'invest' in 'Consultancy Farms' again, who pay below the tax threshold for services rendered, but, who also pay out a regular 'dividend' which is currently (I believe) considered a non-taxable benefit. It's probably only a matter of time before that particular loophole gets closed too. (Assuming of course, that this isn't a mixture of lies and misinformation half heard and half remembered from a drunken pub conversation with someone who was telling me about their 'mate') |
|
| |
The master loophole closer: Fringe Benefit Tax. |
|
| |
As far as "baked" in other areas, usually, you have to have your business mission be something other than simply "a good life for one guy". That's where the crux of this lies, in making it up-front that we humans should have the same benefits as corporations, without having to pretend we're a software company who just happens to use a bedroom for business, etc. That bedroom is actually supporting a full & good life for me, and I shouldn't need to lie about it. Oh, well, taxes paid, moving on... |
|
| |
I was trying to find that written down somewhere - that the purpose of a corporation can't just be "a good life for this one guy" - and couldn't find it. Where is that actually constrained, do you know? |
|
| |
Can we not amend that mission statement a bit and have it read: "A good and meaningful life for this one guy"? |
|
| |
Non-optional disclaimer: "'Good' and 'meaningful' as defined by 'this one guy'" |
|
| |
[jutta] I confess that I don't know where it's written down anywhere. I am currently perhaps a bit too timid to try it out with the IRS just yet. |
|
| |
There are many ideas that I'd put on the HB but not dare try with the IRS, police, etc. This is one. |
|
| |
Shz - A chapter S corporation in the US can be started with only one person. All income from it flows to the individual after expenses have been deducted. |
|
| |
Zimmy - There's no 150K bar set for the corporation. It can make or loose whatever the market will bear.
The cost for incorporation is roughtly 500 dollars in the US and then 150 annually for a state corporation fee. |
|
| |
Worldgineer - You have to pay yourself wages from the corporation in order to collect unemployment. I've known people who have laid themselves off from their own company and collected unemployment compensation when times got tough. |
|
| |
sophocles - Unfortunately the concept entails fraud. Companies have to declare what kind of business they're in (and there's a standard set to choose from). After a few years of showing no net income you'd be audited. |
|
| |
I know the rules for incorporating have been relaxed. It once required 5 people, then 3, and now 2.* I don't think you can do it alone. The President can also be the Clerk, but not the Treasurer. Someone else has to hold that position. And you must be incorporated 'normally' before declaring your corporation 'S'.* |
|
| |
*I don't pay attention to this unless I need to, but my information is fairly recent. Has it changed again in the last year? |
|
| |
I still think not-for-profit is the way to go. It doesn't have as extensive a history of corruption so is less closely scrutinized. You can make a profit, but all profits must be applied to the corporate physical plant (including grounds and infrastructure such as electronic equipment) to avoid taxes. In this case the physical plant is Soph's dwelling(s). This way deducting expenses is minimized, therefore less suspicious. Also, an altruistic mission statement is accepted more easily, though I agree with [methinksnot], it should be more generic... and obscure. |
|
| |
This is, of course, a tad dishonest, but at least with a not-for-profit the bottom line is supposed to read zero. |
|
| |
shz - I incorporated my company in Florida in 2001 and there was only me in it. This was an 'S' corporation though; 'C' corporations need more people. |
|
| |
[longshot], you became an 'S' without first being a 'C'? Seems that's what I'm missing. I didn't know it yet possible to go directly to 'S'. It wasn't always this way, but makes sense that it should be. |
|
| |
shz - Yes, I went straight to an 'S' corp without going through 'C' first. |
|
| |
longshot9999 writes: "Companies have to declare what kind of business they're in (and there's a standard set to choose from)."
So, can we get a pointer to this standard set, anywhere? I'm not challenging its existence, but it does seem awfully hard to find. |
|
| |
I'd love to have someone actually do this and then hear of a lawsuit resulting from a disagreement between the board members and the individual about what's best for the individual. "But I love her!" - "That little gold-digger's only after your money, and you're not buying her any more jewelry." |
|
| |
Then just as you start to get your life under control, the in-laws buy out your wife's shares and perform a hostile takeover. |
|
| |
[thumbwax], you'd still have to set up a corporation to get the tax advantages - a DBA just lets your corporation or sole proprietorship trade under a new name. |
|
| |
Interesting! Standard Industry Codes, hm, hm. There's a lot of wiggle room there - between Major Groups 88 (private households), 89 (miscellaneous services), and 99 (nonclassifiable establishments), I'm starting to think that this is more an attempt to put everything somewhere than an attempt to constrain. |
|
| |
(wonders if there's a SIC for public:evil:contracting company) |
|
| |
Just live on the run like I do. Sure, I had to break into a strangers house to type this, but I have my freedom, damnit! |
|
| |
I talked to a slightly more legally well-grounded person about this. He explained that the test that an IRS auditor would apply to decide whether or not a business can deduct costs from its taxable income involves whether or not the costs are related to the income. |
|
| |
In other words, if "being Sophocles" is the source of income for the corporation (for example, if Sophocles is a pop star who has to uphold a certain image in public), then costs related to that can be deducted. What the stated purpose of the corporation is doesn't really matter. |
|
| |
That's hearsay, may be misunderstood, and rules elsewhere may vary, but it makes some sense to me. |
|
| |
How do you define celebrity, though? |
|
| |
Can I say I'm a public figure just because people I don't know regularly read my blog? |
|
| |
Not that it matters, since I don't pay taxes, as my job is off the books. |
|
| |
jutta, as to where corporations declare what they do, I refer you to the attached link explaining Business Activity within a corporate tax return. |
|
| |
A separate (and potentially more accurate) place would be to look at the description provided by any detailed financial quote service. |
|
| |
//professional bastard//
//crazy bitches// |
|
| |
Are you refering to lawyers? |
|
| |
Allright, who's the smart-ass who linked to a 23 page PDF written by the IRS! This is the half-bakery, dammit! |
|
| |
But reading that, I still think there's some wiggle room to be up-front about it in a perhaps novel way. Corporations always wiggle to become people, with first ammendment rights & such, so why not let people wiggle to be corporations to get the tax breaks. The corporations didn't have to give up their profit-motive or gain souls to become people legally, so why would we have to become profit-machines to become corporations? |
|
| |
Also, in the US, if you make no profit for 3 years, the IRS reclassifies you as a "hobby", and no more business breaks. So, instead of $0, you just report profit of, say $0.51 one year out of 3. |
|
| |
I'm quite certain that if the government caught on to these schemes in a large enough volume the rules would change. |
|
| |
There is room to do something similar to this proposal in most OECD jurisdictions, as I understand it. |
|
| |
Switzerland is one of the better ones, where interest on any borrowing cost is deductible, including personal expenditures up to a certain limit on credit cards. |
|
| |
I've nested myself in a trust, with discretion over income distribution to beneficiaries. Another trust owns all of my assets, and my trading enterprises rent the use of those assets as needed. |
|
| |
A third trust handles any joint venture arrangements with other parties, to preserve my assets and personal trading efforts from potential attack by any disgruntled or malicious busines partners. |
|
| |
One of my enterprises leases my house from the asset trust, to use for business purposes. A 40 year lease that provides for penalties in the event of termination of the lease, if anyone ever attacks the asset, ensures the equity in the house goes to the trading enterprise as compensation for termination of the lease. |
|
| |
Shares and other income-producing assets are to be sequestered into a descendants' testamentary trust in the event of my death, preventing them from becoming the sole property of any successors who might then lose those assets through an equity redistribution ordered by a court in the event of divorce or estrangement from spouses or partners. |
|
| |
The total cost of this arrangement was less than $6000, with a maintenance cost of about $2500/year. |
|
| |
It also allows me to contribute low-taxed retirement funds from 3 separate entities, up to the tax threshold, minimising taxation further, to preserve pre-tax of those funds for reinvestment through nominated retirement investment schemes. |
|
| |
It sounds complicated, but it's not that hard once you draw a map of it on paper. |
|
| |
Remember... if you pay some tax (not necessarily a lot), the tax office will pretty much ignore you. If you pay none at all they will try to find a way to force you to contribute. |
|
| |
Quote from the 23 pg IRS PDF |
|
| |
//IRS E-services make taxes easier.
Now more than ever, businesses can enjoy the benefits of filing and paying their taxes electronically.// |
|
| |
Yeah right, making it electronic makes taxes FUN! |
|
| |
Umm, [UnaBubba], I don't think I quite got that. Could you draw me a map to help better explain it? Oh, and please include any relevant account numbers, passwords, bank names, etc. I learn so much faster with a real life examples to compare it to. Thanks! |
|
| |