Capital gains from bullion sales I read on the internet that one can sell, online, less than 25 troy ounces of gold Maple Leaf coins without reporting the sale to the IRS. Is this true? Is this over a calendar year?
if you sell less then 25 1oz Maple Leaf gold coins, you do not have to file a 1099-B at the time of the sale. You still have to report the proceeds on Schedule D when you file your income taxes for the year.
You ask them explicitly, maybe adding that you need that info specifically to calculate tax. IP address is not reliable because your customers could be using VPN, Tor, or be on vacation overseas. (By the way, "IP" on a website about law would more likely be understood as "Intellectual Property", not "Internet Protocol address".)
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, all 1024 pages of it, was enacted in the course of a year, basically rebooting and rewriting the tax code, contains §1211 in in 68A Stat. 321: (b) OTHER TAXPAYERS.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such sales or ex-changes, plus the taxable income of the taxpayer or $1,000, whichever is smaller. For purposes of this subsection, taxable income shall be computed without regard to gains or losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets and without regard to the deductions provided in section 151 (relating to personal exemptions) or any deduction in lieu thereof. If the taxpayer elects to pay the optional tax imposed by section 3, &quot;taxable income&quot; as used in this subsection shall be read as &quot;adjusted gross income&quot;. This was rewritten in 1969, 83 Stat. 642, only 256 pages, to say (1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such sales or exchanges, plus (if such losses exceed such gains) whichever of the following is smallest: &quot; (A) the taxable income for the taxable year, &quot;(B) $1,000, or &quot;(C) the sum of— &quot;(i) the excess of the net short-term capital loss over the net long-term capital gain, and &quot; (ii) one-half of the excess of the net long-term capital loss over the net short-term capital gain. &quot;(2) MARRIED INDIVIDUALS.—In the case of a husband or wife who files a separate return, the amount specified in paragraph (1) (B) shall be $500 in lieu of $1,000. In 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, 1401(a,b) makes a further amendment, by replacing &quot;$1,000&quot; with &quot;the applicable amount&quot; and then defining the applicable amount for 1977 and for years thereafter: (2) APPLICABLE AMOUNT.—For purposes of paragraph (1) (B), the term 'applicable amount' means— &quot;(A) $2,000 in the case of any taxable year beginning in 1977; a n d &quot; (]3) $3,000 in the case of any taxable year beginning after 1977. So it has been that way since 1978.
I wouldn't be surprised to see other states and jurisdictions with similar statutes. Fortunately, in the United States, there is a safe harbor against demands for state income taxes: For every dollar of taxable income, you can only be taxed by one state. (This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne.) Therefore, if you show that the LLC (or its members if it's a pass-through) paid taxes to another state on the income in question (e.g., by sending a copy of the tax return), that's legally the end of the matter.
This is a good example of the life of the law being experience and not reason. While there is a logical argument that this isn't theft, in reality, this conduct would universally be considered an open and shut case of shoplifting and anyone who tried this would surely be convicted of a crime with consequences far more severe than creating a tort debt for conversion of the property. Also, you do intend to permanently deprive the store of its property. The fact that you intend to remedy that by paying for it doesn't change that. You aren't borrowing the property with an intent of returning it.
In essence, Schwab is stating that they are not a law enforcement agency and they have neither the interest nor the legal right to pursue criminals. They state that they will assist law enforcement but also tell you that, from their experience, law enforcement while they have the legal right also don't have any interest in doing so. This is completely correct. I'm not going to comment on what you should do to protect yourself from identity theft. With respect to the reverse transfer: you are on very shaky legal ground here - you transferred funds without authorization and you are not legally allowed to do this even to recover your own losses. If you had limited this to just recovering your own funds then you would be extremely unlikely to be prosecuted but by taking more than was yours you have technically committed a theft of your own. That said, it seems unlikely that law enforcement will be interested - Schwab are not making a complaint and I doubt that the original thief will - for obvious reasons. However, its possible (even likely) that this was not the thief's bank account - this is likely to be an innocent third party's account that the thief was using to obfuscate their crime. If so, the money you took (both the original amount and the extra $50) you took actually belongs to that innocent party - your money had probably spent very little time in that account.
Yes If it is illegal to transfer money between the jurisdictions then any contract that requires that to happen is unenforceable. This is a subset of "sovereign risk" in a trans-national deal.
Not at the level of the state, but businesses subject to King County (WA) jurisdiction will, effective Jan. 1 2025, have to accept cash (within limits: not larger than $20 bill, not more that $200) for in-person transactions. Ad hoc exemptions are allowed in case of significant theft history, business operated at home, or with only one on-site employee.