The IRS checking every transaction over 600 dollars

No wonder I'm still waiting on my 2020 tax refund...

Ridiculous.

Impossible.

What the hell are you talking about, OP? Perhaps a LINK?

Sounds like a Fox News talking point.

Think of all the people who free lance or are self employed who don’t declare this money.

What OP is taking about is online sellers who use EBay or PayPal will get a 1099 at the end of the year, next year, for online sales over $600. Previously the amount which triggered a 1099 was $20,000.

You will only have to pay taxes on gains if it’s something which you’ve purchased or were given which you sell for a profit.

Hopefully this will get some of the professional resellers out of the thrift stores and make room for us collectors.

Nice one OP. You know it’s exactly what R7 says, but you’re using Republican talking points to spread lies. Go back to Gettr asshole!

is that any individual sale over 600 or 600 in total?

Whoa. That is not how the $600 is going to work and this has nothing to do with ebay and etsy sellers. They are not going to report every time you make a single banking transaction of $600 or more. But if you have more than $600 a year in deposits and withdrawals (which would be practically EVERYONE), they will see how much money went in and out of the account annually.

However, there's no way Democratic House members will ever allow that number ($600) to go through. It will be raised to $10,000.

Also, Biden wants to give the IRS $80 billion to hire more agents to audit taxpayers. The IRS and Yellen claim this will allow them to audit the "super wealthy," which is laughable. The tax code was written by lawmakers working for the "super wealthy" to ensure they wouldn't have to pay taxes. These newly hired fuckhead agents will still go after easy targets, like Shoney waitresses.

R7, it’s ridiculous when corporations pay no taxes and now the people literally having an electronic yard sale have to pay taxes on shit.

I think that the $600 in online sales is a different issue. It sounds like this is about bank accounts and not online resell (eBay, Mercari and Poshmark.)

[quote] Think of all the people who free lance or are self employed who don’t declare this money.

I can't because I keep thinking of Donald Trump who hasn't paid taxes in forever and is still wandering the streets free.

six hundred dollars being spent? Is that per day or hour?

The IRS can eat my asshole.

We small business owners went through this about a decade ago when we started getting 1099s from the credit card processors.

We don’t need more auditors. We need the tax rate for the highest bracket to go to 50% and get rid of all of the nonsense tax breaks.

missing refunds, maybe?

I can’t speak to proposed legislation, but I know that the $600 limit on online sales was a part of the last spending bill which have COVID funds to states. The GOP insisted on “pay-fors” in the bill because where the Dems want to spend money there is some special requirement that the deficit can’t go up.

The new proviso probably has to do with the fact that EBay will now direct deposit to your account without going through PayPal. Why I don’t know, because they are the same parent company. However, I’m glad.

As the online space becomes a greater share of the economy, it should be taxed as the brick and mortar stores. To do so would be suicide of states which gain their tax revenue from property taxes.

It’s a true story and it’s also a total overreach

Yet OP provides no link, and people in this thread are "outraged" over it. Almost as if you're just responding to stimuli.

Currently, federal law requires banks to notify the government of any deposit greater than $10,000. This is to prevent money laundering and other illegal activity. This leads people to break up the deposits into smaller amounts. But there are also laws that require the banks to monitor amounts over a short period of time (a couple of weeks, for example). Still, the savvy crook can still find ways to get around these restrictions. Setting the top dollar amount at $600 makes it harder for the criminally minded to evade detection. If you are not doing anything wrong, none of this matters. It's just more work for the bank.

R21 it's definitely real news. How invasive it could be is what's unknown at this point.

10k in deposits is too low as well. Even most social security dependents recieve at least 10k in deposits annually. This will make people leery of using bank accounts for everything. I'm thinking cash might make a big come back.

We all know damn well it's not about monitoring the wealthy for taxes when it would be way higher than $600 or even 10k. This is so they can audit the middle to lower classes even more than they do now. There's a reason they go after people making under 20k for audits 8 times more than millionaires.

The IRS is after my ass. They say i owe them $74 thousand. I understand why ppl put a bullet in their head when dealing w them. They need to be less intrusive

r23 But that's not what they're doing at all. The OP and the headline is totally incorrect. This thread should be F&Fed for getting basic shit wrong that is easily disproven and clearly intended as clickbait.

If you read the article you posted it says it's a proposal (not current reality) and it's checking the amounts coming in and out of the accounts, not what it's spent on, but where it's going, in accounts that have in/outflows over $600. And the proposal says they're thinking of raising the minimum amount to $10,000.

And it probably won't happen anyway, because the IRS has a lot of other shit to do to improve their systems first.

r24 Nowhere do you mention whether or not you actually OWE that much.

Cash. Huge come back. I've relied on cash for lots of things for ages now. I'm not particularly paranoid but the thought of my every purchase recorded and the ability to place my locations at all times is just too much for me. Young people seem to have no problem with this.

Until the IRS gets the biggies to cough up then they can take a flying fuck.

R23, the problem we have with OP is not that he’s passing false information but that he blames it on the wrong person. Joe Biden is the head of the executive branch. Legislation is passed by the Congress, which Biden has no real power over. I say this as someone who was chastised here during the Trump administration for suggesting that the President is the head of his party and sets the agenda for same. Deal with it.

Regardless, I’ll point to the fact that this clause, the $10,000 clause, was gotten around by former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert in his pay-offs to a boy he molested. I believe the transfers were $9,999 over months.

Can the GOP both stomach this legislation even if it helps to find and convict pedophiles… the seeming bane of the activist wing of the party? Think of the children.

R22 that's bs and makes me want to avoid banking. You can claim all you want it's to "catch crooks" but $600 is an extremely low threshold to trigger suspicion. I'm not a fan of justifications like "if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't care". You absolutely should care because mistakes are made and the IRS loves punishing average people. They're easy to go after.

R25 I did read it and fully acknowledged this isn't fleshed out. I don't think it's fair to f/f if the correct info is posted and it's getting the topic attention. I for one am glad to know about this being proposed, and wouldn't have known without the topic posted.

There's no reason for them to be spying on bank account transactions, unless it's genuinely suspicious numbers (like cash deposits of thousands every week on top of a reg paycheck). Even then, they can go blow. Funny they were able to hound me over a couple hundred dollars (with penalties, $600, and they were wrong), for taxes 7 yrs prior, without having to look at a bank account -- yet they can't keep tabs on the rich? They don't have accounts here to watch, so it's not fucking them.

r29 the headline and the OP is wrong, though.Of course it's correct to F&F it, it's clearly intended as clickbait, and this is a current talking point amongst right wing circles so people will see the headline and think "oh no!" and that will have the intended effect, which is to slag the Biden administration.

And they ALREADY get informed on bank transactions, anything over $10,000.

If you read any of the articles presented in this thread, they mention the IRS is severely understaffed and underfunded. Trump even cut the IRS's budget (for obvious reasons he hates the IRS). The issue with going after billionaire tax cheats is that they have massive amounts of money to lawyer up and burn time and resources, and they also have massively larger portfolios that require large staffs and time to go through if they are audited. It's shitty, but that's the system. I agree that the IRS should focus on the larger tax cheats, but there's far more of the smaller kind, and they're much easier for the IRS to go after.

The problem isn't the IRS, it's the lack of funding for the IRS, which is a result of Republicans in Congress, primarily.

And if they cared so much about tax avoidance and other shinanagins, they would stop allowing ridiculous deductions. They're tailor made for the wealthy. Oh you bought a tesla? Here's a big deduction. Oh you paid for fertility treatments? Tax deductions for you! Oh you gave to charity to avoid reg tax? Big deduction for you! They make the amounts so high you have to hit, regular people can't claim. You know it's crooked when they show they can't be bothered to audit people that can fight back, instead going after someone that made $500 over the tax exempt cut off.

r31 Congress is who writes the tax code, not the IRS. The IRS just implements rules around the framework provided by Congress.

[quote]Oh you bought a tesla? Here's a big deduction.

That’s being pushed by the AOC / Green New Deal types who want gas cars to become obsolete.

R30 fair enough with the point about getting people riled up towards Biden, when Republicans have been behind some bs for quite some time. I still don't think it's right that the IRS audits 8x more for those under 20k. That's just a waste of time and probably doesn't get close to the amount forfeited every year by people that don't file. 10k is even fair enough, but those proposed amounts come across as looking to harass people. Seems like they want to catch people selling used shit, which shouldn't be taxed multiple times anyway. It's like NYS wanting a cut of every vehicle sale, making tax on the same item over and over.

R33 I always get a kick out of that because something like 65% of our electric is generated using fossil fuels. For those in an area that generates it that way, they're using gas whether or not they like it.

R21 Or maybe because we follow current events?

R10 attacks Dems instead of Republicans who want tax breaks for billionaires

R23 is a troll. You think this is going to make people give up bank accounts? LOL

R37, that was an attack?!

Here’s one reference

It seems like bad politics. Americans hate the IRS, Americans hate IRS agents and low-info voters will believe the GOP talking points, like McConnell declaring, "Biden wants to give the IRS the OK to snoop on your bank account!!!" Democrats need to get their messaging together because people will freak about this.

R41, I made roughly $18,000, I have no problem with the IRS cracking down on tax cheats. Most of the resellers that have ruined my local thrift store are on disability and use the internet resale market as a way to game the system. You’re not disabled if you can stand around on a hard concrete floor for hours and hours.

Fuck tax cheats. Top or bottom. Most of it goes to old and poor people, say what you will about military spending. We all have a stake in this world.

I got a 1099 statement at the end of the year because I opened a new checking account and got a $250.00 bonus for doing so.

Yet people like Trump can default on loans, declare lo$$es, launder millions and dabble in real estate fraud for decades.

Well, I'm just going to have to move my yard sales off shore.

This is power run fucking amock. I can’t believe this is an actual thing. If they want the rich people to pay their taxes, they should zero in on them, not the rest of us

R45, talk to your legislator.

The IRS has been historically, critically underfunded. The reason audits have been done more commonly is because the rich have lawyers who will drag it out so long that it’s a zero sum game for the government.

Simple as that.

*audits on the poor

[quote] Congress is who writes the tax code, not the IRS. The IRS just implements rules around the framework provided by Congress.

You're naive if you don't realize that administrations - aka the Executive Branch - also help write proposed legislation. They have always done that all the time. If they want a piece of legislation drafted they make sure a friend or friends in Congress technically is the one or ones who draft it and get it introduced. If the IRS wants changes to the code they can get it. Every time the US Attorney's Office or DOJ want something they can always get it. Now they all may not pass exactly the way they want it but they play a heavy hand in drafting legislation. Every agency does this. Every agency has a legislative office and liaisons to Congress.

R38 I admit a bit hyperbole by claiming people will completely stop using bank accounts, but really with the troll crap? Always as soon as a comment isn't liked it must be "trolling" 🙄 I'm a paying member here that's used this site for years, but I digress.

I'm just not a wealthy person and my household has gotten by all different ways, from odd jobs, to selling things we've fixed. By no means making a killing, with a third of our low income going to taxes as it is. It's either that, or we'd have to find ways of going a bit lower in income to qualify for help. This way, we're actually contributing in some way, but obviously the piddly savings we scrape up once in while should be open to the possibility of being examined, as if we're laundering money? It's bad enough savings accounts have become a joke with their .001%

I think it is 10,000 now r10.

On The Sopranos Carmella steals Tony's money hidden in the yard and opens a bunch of bank accounts all for 9 thousand. One banker says oh good that is just under the limit for us having to report it to the IRS.

Carmella says oh really? (but it is obvious she knows all along.)

It's not just about online sales! Read a news article, guys.

[quote]Specifically, the administration wants to require financial institutions tell the IRS about the aggregated “inflow” and “outflow” from bank, loan and investment accounts, according to Treasury Department documents. The rule would apply to personal and business accounts, but it would not involve handing transaction-level details over to the IRS. The reporting would be done on an annual basis and the threshold for reporting would be $600 — a level that could increase in the Capitol Hill give-and-take if the idea becomes law.

Don't blame me. That mean Dr. Jill and that chatty red head made me do it. The said they wouldn't let me have raisins in my pudding this week if I said no.

This is really too intrusive. Even the $10,00 automatic reporting is intrusive in my eyes. They should be required to have some kind of probable cause to seek that information about a personal account.

Hell that is easily what some struggling immigrant saved up to by a used Toyota. And used car sales by individuals want cash.

Banks already send the IRS information on interest earned on all bank accounts, so this policy will not add anything to that. There is nothing about this policy that will result in people getting 1099 forms when they previously did not. What it will do is flag accounts to the IRS that have a larger than expected inflow and outflow of funds, which might indicate tax evasion or some other illegal activity.

For example, if you claim on your taxes that you have an income of $25k and your checking account has a total of $100k coming into and out of the account, all from sums less than the currently monitored $10k limit, but over the proposed $600 limit. It could be legitimate if you did a $100k in sales on eBay and made a $25k profit; or you could be lying about what your business actually is.

People worry that their privacy is being invaded, but the truth is, there is no privacy. Every bank transaction, every credit card transaction, every movement you make carrying your phone is recorded. The data is there if someone is interested in it. But there aren't enough people in the world to actually track what every other person is doing. All the data that is already being collected is ignored because, for the most part, no one cares about you or what you are doing. It's only after you do something suspicious that someone starts looking at you, and once they do, it's way too late to worry about your privacy. That train left the station a couple of decades ago.

And this is nonsense and has no legal or constitutional basis.

[quote] What it will do is flag accounts to the IRS that have a larger than expected inflow and outflow of funds, which might indicate tax evasion or some other illegal activity.

Just because the data is there does not mean the government has access to it. Hell it doesn't even have access to your Facebook info without a subpoena. Nor to your phone, This is the very definition of a fishing expedition.

We don't live in a society that allows the government to look over your shoulder and monitor you constantly and in your private everyday life without the appropriate reasons like PC or even articulable suspicion that a crime is occurring BEFORE they can ask permission to look further.

The $10,000 threshold should be raised to $50,000. $10,00 is no longer a significant amount of money.

“We’re talking about a small amount of information, not every transaction that’s less than $600,” she said, according to a transcript. “We’re just asking for two additional pieces of information, aggregate inflows and aggregate outflows from the account during the year.”

janet yellen

There has to be more to the story. They don't have the resources to do this with every 600+ transaction. You're overestimating the power of the IRS.

R19

Ebay and PayPal parted ways a few years ago.

For record all peer to peer providers and online processors of transactions are required by treasury department to collect and verify information about users.

PayPal, Zelle, Venmo, etc... all fall into same boat.

r43 That "bonus" you got is just additional interest income and the bank advised you of that fact when you opened the account. Why would you think interest was not taxable?

They have to find the money to pay for all the giveaways from somewhere…right?

Silly Older Homosexuals.

On what planet does the IRS have enough employees to make this happen?

(Quick Answer: Not on this one)

[quote]I'm not particularly paranoid but the thought of my every purchase recorded and the ability to place my locations at all times is just too much for me.

Face it, finding your morning Metamucil is just too much for you.

If the IRS is going to need a vast amount of new workers I suggest we tell friends and family to apply.

Let's fuck up that illegal organization from inside.

Sure, OP. Sure, you worked for Biden's campaign.

Does that mean they're going to start going after billionaires?

They can check all my purchases for all I care. I pay my taxes.

We can be confident that information, once provided to the government, will be safeguarded and used only for appropriate purposes.

R55, What you are missing is this is not done entirely (or simply) by having people looking at transactions. The banks will be able to do this because they will develop software routines to track and collect this data. The banks already have software which they have developed in house to track data of all kinds for all kinds of purposes. The IRS will also develop software routines to analyze the data to determine what falls within normal movement of funds in and out of accounts (both business and personal), and what does not. When the activity on an account falls out of the normal range, the information will be handed over to an analyst to investigate further. This is how banks and the IRS (and lots of other organizations) already operate.

The IRS is severely underfunded in this area (not by accident), and it is one of the reason why Democrats like Elizabeth Warren want to increase the IRS budget.

[quote] On what planet does the IRS have enough employees to make this happen?

So what's the criteria for deciding where to expend human resources?

You want info on me then go to a judge with probable cause and get a warrant.

People be sheep.

R69, you should know that the mention of sheep makes you look like a fool.

You might as well become Orwell FCS!

Riiiight. A fool who expects a legally based and properly served subpoena. If that makes me a fool then call me Anthony Newley.

R68

You're dreaming....

Several years ago tax laws were changed to force peer to peer payment systems and credit cards processors to provide IRS with information about transactions. To date little has been done with said information because IRS does not have manpower (nor will likely as well) to do all the work you've just described.

If IRS/Treasury department cannot cope with credit card/peer to peer transaction data, in what world do you believe they will suddenly be able to manage with exponentially huge amounts more of banking data?

Suppose in a perfect world Treasury department/IRS would be given huge increases in budget to develop systems, hire manpower, conduct audits... But that won't happen across board for many reasons.

Democrats are fine with any increased auditing or whatever long as it affects the "rich". OTOH GOP don't want the IRS to have any more power than it already does, and they've been cutting that down over past decades.

The issue is not whether they have the personnel to actually monitor all these reported transactions. The issue is should they have the automatic authority to have this information.

Because at some point they will have the means - either technical or using personnel - to do it.

I'd like to see a court challenge to it.

[quote]It's just more work for the bank.

Which might mean yet more absurd 'fees' from the banks.

R73

You do realize banks and other financial institutions have long been required to report certain account information.

AKA the Bank Secrecy Act...

IRC Section 6050W...

And more....

So you see, federal government already has clear and established authority to require banks, financial institutions, and so forth to report certain information. Biden and democrats want to lower the bar in aid of trawling with a much larger net.

"More work for banks or other reporting financial institutions..."

No, not really. Maybe back in days when things were done mostly on paper could see someone making that point. But for decades now and certainly within past ten years technology has advanced rapidly. Just as with current reporting requirements all that is needed is a program that flags activity/accounts.

Yes, will give you compliance departments who must compile, sign off and submit reports might see more work on their plate, but nothing that couldn't be handled with slight increase in staffing.

$600 is an insane number to use. Fucking insane. My fucking FIOS costs more than that for 3 months

Is there a chair we can talk to?

For last time Biden doesn't want banks to report every transaction above $600, but activity from accounts that reach that level within a given year. Only thing IRS would receive is a summary of inflows and outflows from said bank or other affected accounts. No details about specific transactions would be reported or recorded.

As others have said $600 was the opening floor. Democrats and Biden likely have have to give on that number if the thing is to become a reality.

Financial institutions already by law must report individual banking transactions at or over $10k. If this proposal were up ante from say $600 to 10k it still would mean reporting on a large number of American financial accounts. This is because instead of it being a one off $10k transaction things would revolve around yearly aggregate of deposits and withdrawals. Using $10k means monthly transactions of around $960, that's not even minimum wage money.

Of course if the idea is to go after self-employed, gig workers, independent contractors (and make no mistake regardless of chatter in Congress, democrats know fully well this proposal will hit those groups hard), then even at $10k this scheme will cast a very wide net.

Our girl who comes in to do for us makes more than that, and we pay by check.

[quote] Also, Biden wants to give the IRS $80 billion to hire more agents to audit taxpayers.

You're a damned liar. He wants to give it to them so they can collect the more than $1 Trillion in back taxes that is owed to the government (and taxpayers)

But evidently, you like people who don't pay their taxes and you're against anyone making them pay those back taxes

Anyone else feel like this thread is 90% "Boris" arguing with "Ling Ling"?

whatever comes of all this I would like to add that every IRS agent who can squeeze more money out of a taxpayer who has already filed gets a bonus. I think it used to be $100 per "customer" but that was 20 years ago.

I don't cheat so I think it's great. Only if you have something to hide would you be against it. Those who are against it are the same type that think there privacy is more important than nabbing child molestors and crooks.

[quote]For last time Biden doesn't want banks to report every transaction above $600, but activity from accounts that reach that level within a given year.

Explain this, please. And I'm not being snide, because I'm trying to understand:

He doesn't want every transaction over 600 reported, but wants to know activity that reaches that level of 600? What's the difference between activity above $600 and transaction above $600?

My understanding is that every account that has more than $600 worth of activity is a candidate for review.

Janet Yellen tried to frame this as targeting small business owners who she doesn’t feel pay their fair share. She’s going after the Etsy crowd who sell handmade quilts but don’t report the income.

[quote]My understanding is that every account that has more than $600 worth of activity is a candidate for review.

This doesn't make sense. The IRS will be checking millions of Americans accounts.

If I take $600 cash out of my checking or bank account, that will be reviewed and questioned? It's MY damn money. What if I give my nieces and nephews cash gifts for Christmas and birthdays? This is unbelievable.

Yet, the wealthy will continue to have loopholes to pay less taxes? The US government always goes after the wrong people. What if people are making an extra few thousand a year on Etsy? Who cares.

eBay now collects tax directly, they add on the tax at Checkout, that way, eBay doesn't have to wait for the Sellers to collect tax, then send it to eBay. As if eBay even pays their fair share of taxes! What a joke.

The irony, since eBay Sellers do sell a lot of used items, Buyers are paying tax on old items which were already taxed in the past. eBay also tags on a tax on the USPS shipping costs. Who pays tax at the post office?!

We are always being scammed by the government and by corporations.

If this is true and not some "Boris" crap, I won't vote for Dems again. This is insane. $600 is nothing and you want to go after people for that amount? It's hard enough surviving with what the pandemic wrought.

This is baffling, especially as most peoples checking accounts have more that $600 activity in a month.

Between a rent, or a mortgage, as well as the other normal monthly bills most people have (phone, cable, food, utilities etc) and miscellaneous emergency spending, such as an appliance breaking and the need to buy a new one, it would surely cost more than $600 for, say, a new fridge. WTF are the IRS looking for?!!

An elderly aunt and uncle, who have remained in public housing in NYC, have a rent of $750 a month. Most peoples normal monthly expenses are way over $600.

What a bizarre threshold, $600. Seriously, this is sheer insanity.

[quote]My understanding is that every account that has more than $600 worth of activity is a candidate for review.

In other words, every account in the US.

This is insanity. I have a parent with dementia. I'm constantly having to make withdrawals over $600 because the fucking Medicare plan doesn't cover the expensive medical supplies needed and the copay on meds are hundreds of dollars a month. Perhaps I should just lie and get them on medicaid like a lot of the people in certain communities have done and never have to touch any money.

I'm beyond disgusted. Who in the hell proposed this and thought people including supporters wouldn't be outraged? At least add a fucking zero so it looks more reasonable.

If you’ve got nothing to hide, why the hell would you care?

R93, because people have enough to worry about and deal with without constantly having to write up some expense report for the god damned IRS.

R94 where did they say that will be required? I’m sure if you’re audited it’s a pain but I pay taxes on everything I should so I have nothing to hide. Personally I know a few people who collect unemployment AND work under the table. Those fuckers needs to cough up.

R95, let's say someone doesn't declare that 600. Should they go to prison over 600 as nothing is done about the wealthy? Do you really feel like justice is being served if someone goes to prison over 600 fucking dollars they made selling shit on Etsy?

[quote] If I take $600 cash out of my checking or bank account, that will be reviewed and questioned?

The original statement said any account that had more than $600 regardless of whether any transactions were made or not. I think the media has blurred the facts of the story a bit to give Biden time to clarify what he meant because everyone realizes this is crazy.

[quote] This doesn't make sense. The IRS will be checking millions of Americans accounts.

Which is why Biden said he wanted to hire more IRS employees.

By the way, many libs were trying to get minimum wage up to $15 per hour. $15 x 40 hours = $600.

Okay who are the stupid people who don't understand privacy rights and other rights and the abuse that can come from what already exists and what is being newly proposed?

These lame arguments that if you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to fear are examples of such low level thinkin that it boggles the mind.

This argument is the same as saying why do you need the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent? If you're "innocent" then you have no need of it.

If there is evidence of child trafficking or whatever then you find that evidence and then you go to a judge and ask for a subpoena with sufficient evidence to get a subpoena. You are approving the government investigating half-ass backward. That's not how we are supposed to be doing things in the U.S.

That is akin to profiling based on economic factors. Pretty low and all encompassing economic factors.

Everyone should be opposed to this.

SHIT

R92

You have direct access to your patient's bank accounts, and make withdrawals?

R92, stated it was their PARENT with dementia, not a patient.

[quote]Which is why Biden said he wanted to hire more IRS employees.

More workers, huh? So, more money taken from taxpayers to pay all these new IRS workers. Hiring more IRS people for something as inconsequential as $600 going in and out of peoples bank and checking accounts.

We are screwed left and right in the US.

You can get 599.00 income from a single source and not have to be 1099'd...600 yes...and vice versa paying out. Basically not declaring it.. This might be a basis for the 600 threshold

[quote]If I take $600 cash out of my checking or bank account, that will be reviewed and questioned?

As long as your transactions are in line with the income you declare to the IRS, you won't face any questions at all.

If you make 100 deposits of $1,000+ over the course of a year but only declare an income of $30,000, then you might be flagged.

BUT the IRS doesn't have enough employees to follow up on this (even if Joe were to get his way on hiring more employees, which he won't) and if this passes at all, the amount will end up considerably higher than $600.

The IRS and the majority of those in politics and in government are nothing but a bunch of cocksuckers.

And so are Boris and “Ling Ling”

Watch that sly devil Muriel raise the yearly DL subscription rate to $599.99

Just because the IRS is checking doesn’t mean much. If it’s a legitimate transfer, the IRS doesn’t care.

If it gets lowered to $600, the IRS will be too overwhelmed with data to do anything.

One of the ways Dennis Hastert was caught paying the guy who blackmailed him about his diddling little boys was because he kept transferring amounts that were just under $10k to avoid being seen by the IRS.

[Quote]Biden wants to give the IRS $80 billion to hire more agents to audit taxpayers.

OK This is terrifying

I sense a LOT of tax cheats on this thread. Time’s up bitches!

R108 = Pot calling out the kettle?

[quote] "If I take $600 cash out of my checking or bank account, that will be reviewed and questioned?" As long as your transactions are in line with the income you declare to the IRS, you won't face any questions at all. If you make 100 deposits of $1,000+ over the course of a year but only declare an income of $30,000, then you might be flagged.

And you don't see a problem with that? To have every aspect of your life scrutinized? So every time your parent or a friend gives you money? Any time you borrow money?

Jeez. You are a bunch of wussies.

I’m worried about my friend who runs our online football pool. He collects $250-$300 an NFL season from about 75 people, many of whom are out of state and cannot pay him in person.

It’s another overreach by dipshit Biden. Senile old fucker.

I voted for Biden but fuck me this is way out of line.

[quote]I think the media has blurred the facts of the story a bit to give Biden time to clarify what he meant because everyone realizes this is crazy.

I think it's the opposite. The media threw out a headline sure to rile up the masses and drive some clicks. Look at OP's title. "IRS checking every transaction"? On it's face it's wrong because the IRS isn't going to be checking any single transactions.

Once again, R114, it is about the fact they have the authority to do that with no check on it.

Gee what about this is so hard to understand?

The IRS has unfettered authority to do a whole lot of alarming things — including presuming that taxpayers are guilty until proven innocent.

Several years ago, I got a letter from the IRS saying that my return from two years previous had been audited and I owed an additional $32. 🙄 Some IRS person got their bonus on that day.

This is one of the dumbest threads ever.

My life will change so much if the IRS knows whether I have more than $600 in my checking account. BRB gonna storm the Capitol.

R107, the point of hiring more IRS workers is to audit the wealthy, not you.

[quote] My life will change so much if the IRS knows whether I have more than $600 in my checking account. BRB gonna storm the Capitol.

No one storming the Capitol has $600.

R121, but they would've had it it if some brown immigrant didn't dun' go an' take their jobs!

yes, it would have been much much better to have voted for Trump. eye roll

[quote]Several years ago, I got a letter from the IRS saying that my return from two years previous had been audited and I owed an additional $32. 🙄 Some IRS person got their bonus on that day.

Years ago, I got letter from the IRS asking me about where I got the money to pay my mortgage interest. WTF? I've never had a mortgage on anything, I don't even drive, there were no bank loans on anything. I called my accountant and he said he'd take care of it, he did.

I paid cash for my co-op, it was super cheap, $25,000 and needed no upgrades, it was move-in ready. Who would take a mortgage on such a low amount?! At the time, the IRS also bothered my father, asking why he didn't pay tax his $90,000 pension, my father never made $90,000 a year when he worked. He sure wasn't getting such a large pension.

The IRS were obviously looking for someone with the same last name. My father's first name is very common, but our last name sure isn't.

Notice how the IRS only goes after the working and middle classes? They need to start getting more taxes from old those rich motherfuckers.

Fuck the IRS. Fuck so much in this deteriorating country. Trump's presidency revealed so much about the corruption in government, it's always been there, but his presidency exposed so much more.

In a few years, I hope to move out of this country. I honestly don't see anything getting better.

I don't think I want to grow old here, not with such bizarre health insurance rules and the high cost of premiums and copays. If we just had to deal with Medicare, that would be fine, but most people should be aware, you need a secondary health insurance plan in old age. How much money do you need to pay all these extra bills you suddenly have as you age?

My partner has always wanted to retire to Costa Rica. When I first met him I thought that sounded like a slow death to me. I now don’t know if it is such a bad idea.

I think this is a move to align with the crypto boom.

Fuck the IRS.

In fact, #DefundIRS

The current proposal raises the reporting threshold amount to $10,000. Still rather low but better than $600.

Democrats know fully well that even raised to $10k this scheme would cast a wide net that would trawl in many of their own party or supporters.

Just look at liberal, democrat, progressive run states or local areas and you find high levels of self-employed, independent contractors, small businesses, and so on. Then you have various minorities such as illegals who NYC and NYS have been putting lots of stick about to force banks into allowing such persons to open accounts.

At $10k per year of deposits that's only about $834 per month/$208 week. Again hardly merely the "wealthy" but scores of people ranging from poor to barely middle class.

How would banks or Treasury department tease out things like people sending money via Zelle type apps to payback someone who paid restaurant bill for everyone? This and or cash sent by friends, family or whoever for any purpose ranging from birthdays to someone being hard up?

R22 and others that mentioned that banks already have to report transactions over $10,000: that is NOT correct. They have to report transactions over $10,000 involving CASH. If you deposit checks or have electronic transfers in or out of your account, that is not defined as cash. It means cash as in green paper money and coins.

I used to be a compliance officer for a financial institution and was responsible for the filings. The form at the time was called a "4789" (it was IRS form # 4789). A form 4790 was required if the cash crossed over the US border.

R86, the proposal does not involve reporting at the transaction level. It's reporting an aggregate annual amount. For example if you had 100 transactions over the course of the year each amounting to $500, the amount reported would be $50,000. No transaction level detail would get reported under the current proposal. I think any of this type of reporting is bullshit and probably unconstitutional but we'll see where it goes.

[Quote] If you deposit checks or have electronic transfers in or out of your account, that is not defined as cash. It means cash as in green paper money and coins.

That’s not my experience. I transferred money to pay my contractor three times—each happened to be just below $10,000. My bank called me to make sure that it was just for paying bills and not trying to evade the $10k reporting rule

[Quote] No transaction level detail would get reported under the current proposal. I think any of this type of reporting is bullshit and probably unconstitutional but we'll see where it goes.

I believe it’s from the Patriot Act, passed after 9/11. It seems to contain lots of unconstitutional shit (like libraries having to report what people borrow)—but I haven’t heard anything about court challenges

From Forbes.com

"But at the same time, the other day, while driving home, I listened to a fairly generic conservative radio talk show host angry about this proposal. He was not angry about privacy concerns, and certainly not about whether people at the margins would be deterred from opening bank accounts, nor about the cost to banks of compliance with the new regulations. No, what he was up in arms about was the fact that Americans would be obliged to pay tax on their moonlighting self-employment income."

That in a nutshell is what was said previously about this scheme, it is going to cast a very huge net that will impact far more than "rich".

In fact again as noted previously a huge number of democrat, liberal, progressive voters who are self-employed, independent contractors, gig workers, have side jobs off the books, etc.. all would be trawled in such a net.

Democrats are saying "IRS will only audit those above $400k per year" or some other high number. Total BS..... You're saying the IRS is going to be told to disregard obvious things like a hairdresser who reports income of $45k per year, but bank accounts showed deposits for same period of >$60k? Not going to happen.

Then there is fact once law is on books democrats won't be in control of WH forever. A GOP POTUS could instruct head of Treasury to go wherever information leads, and let chips fall where they may.

R134, so?

The rich have their way to get over. Hell, they help write the tax laws. Why can't the poors and middle class?

[quote]In fact again as noted previously a huge number of democrat, liberal, progressive voters who are self-employed, independent contractors, gig workers, have side jobs off the books, etc.. all would be trawled in such a net.

As they should.

It's been dropped.

[quote]It's been dropped.

The fact that it was proposed at all, and originally at $600 no less, tells us all we need to know.

I want to know which asshole proposed it in the first place.

Let them eat cake

They’ll be checking every purchase of mine!!!

[quote]I want to know which asshole proposed it in the first place.

I do too. He or she obviously doesn't care if Democrats win elections, or they wouldn't have proposed something so wildly unpopular with voters.

A few days before this was dropped, the National Republican Congressional Committee began running attack ads targeting vulnerable Democratic Congress members.