Can I give money to another to give to charity, so she gets a deduction? This is a question about Step Transactions. IRS, USA. Suppose I am retired and of limited income, so my tax bracket is about 10% and I don't itemize. I want to give $10,000 to a 501(c)(3) charity. But I won't get any tax benefits if I do, because that won't overcome the new itemization threshold of $12,000. My plan is to give the money to Judy, who will then give it to the Nature Conservancy. Judy is in a 32% tax bracket, so will get back $3200 of net tax benefits. My gift isn't taxable income to Judy, since it's under the $15,000 gift tax exclusion. Judy's onward gift is not optional. She must agree to donate it or no deal. Does this violate the "Step Transaction Doctrine"? Effectively Judy is getting $3200 knocked off her taxes that I am not eligible to take. Second scenario. Suppose I am an old-school conservative and believe in conservation, but the new conservatives would be gravely offended to see me donating to the Nature Conservancy. That would hurt my planned State Senate run. This motivation is entirely innocent, and the tax benefit is an unexpected side-effect. Does that change the picture?
Judy's onward gift is not optional. She must agree to donate it or no deal. This is where the problem lies - you are not giving her a gift because a gift carries no obligations, you are contracting with her to make a $10k donation for which you will pay her $10k. As such, this is assessable income to her.
A capital gains tax is due on the sale, if the sale price for the car is more than the adjusted basis of the car for the person who made the gift of the car. If a car had been owned by the donor as non-business property and not depreciated, and there are no major upgrades to the car (e.g. trading a V6 for a V8 engine), the adjusted basis of the car will normally be the cash price for which the donor bought it (assuming that the donor bought it for cash at arms-length). If the donor bought the car new, the sale of the car for $10,000 will almost surely be less than the purchase price that the donor paid. But if the donor bought the car used for less than $10,000, then there would be some capital gain on the sale which would be reported as part of one's California and United States income taxes in the year of the sale by the gift recipient. The exact rate due would depend upon the seller's tax brackets, which would also be based on other income. In addition, there would probably be California DMV charges for a new license and registration, which could be characterized as a tax, but which are normally paid by the purchaser, along with sales tax.
You must distinguish between eCommerce/Internet shops and Gift shipments. Based on you question, you will be sending a Gift shipment. Based on German Customs pages, the rules for eCommerce will change. There is no meantion for any changes for Gift shipments on their site. Paketda, a Consumer portal, states explicitly that Gift shipments are not effected. Paketda Eine gute Nachricht: Die Freigrenze von 45 Euro für Geschenke von Privatpersonen an Privatpersonen bleibt bestehen. Bis zu diesem Betrag werden keine Einfuhrabgaben (Steuern und Zoll) erhoben. Good news: The exemption limit of 45 euros for gifts from private individuals to private individuals remains in place. Up to this amount, no import duties (taxes and customs) are levied. For a Gift shipment up to €45, your friend should not expect to pay any VAT. Sources: Ab Juli entfällt die 22-Euro-Zollfreigrenze / Freibetrag für Geschenkpakete bleibt Zoll online - Änderungen ab dem 1. Juli 2021 Zoll online - Geschenksendungen (Gift shipments) doesn't meantion any changes
Not all income is taxed at the rates you cite. Special rates apply to long term capital gain and qualified dividends (maximum rate 20%). There are $1,349 of qualified dividends in this case and $3000 of capital losses that can be taken in the current year (this is the cap for capital losses against ordinary income). The benefit the Warren receives from these special tax rates is negligible. There are also above the line deductions ($59,348) and itemized deductions (they claimed $60,128 of them that reduce their taxable income), credits (which reduce taxes dollar for dollar of which they claimed $13,936) and the carry forward of losses that couldn't be claimed in full in a prior year for some reason (which is functionally similar to a deduction) of which the Warrens have $102,276 but could only use $3,000 in the current year. While they doesn't appear to be included in the $905,742 of gross income figure cited, certain kinds of income are also exempt from inclusion on a tax return such as qualified municipal bond interest, certain income in the form of wages and salaries earned abroad, certain disability payments, personal injury settlements (exclusive of interest components) and alimony received under a post-2017 divorce decree, to name a few. None of these items are relevant for Warren. According to @JackFleeting in his answer: they had gross income of $905,742, AGI of $846,394, taxable income of $786,266 and tax liability of $230,965 Per the chart, the tax due on ordinary income of $786,266 is $229,058 by my calculation. This is reduced by a $13,936 residential energy credit (because she installed solar panels on her home), and $8,696 of additional federal tax as self-employment taxation, and $6,137 of self-employment and Obamacare taxes netted against overwitholding of Medicare taxes. The itemized deductions were $60,128 which consists of state and local income tax payments (limited to $10,000 of $78,086 incurred in 2018) and charitable deductions of $50,128 (about 5.5% of her income). Warren herself, like most middle and upper middle class people in the Northeast, fares very badly with respect to deductions in 2018 compared to all prior years when they were not subject to a $10,000 cap. For reference purposes, the disallowed itemized deductions increased her tax bill by $25,192 (itemized deductions don't impact the amount of FICA, self-employment tax and Obamacare tax due). On the other hand, she benefits from the lower tax brackets in 2018 compared to those in 2017. Overall the 2017 tax law reduced Warren's taxes by about $2,713 (a little more than 1.1% of her total tax bill and about 0.3% of her family's gross income). There are "above the line" adjustments to income in the amount of $59,348, there is a self-employment adjustment to correct for the self-employed paying both employee and employer FICA ($4,348) and adjustment for a retirement plan contribution in the maximum allowed amount of $55,000. Notably, she took no business expenses as deductions against her writing income. Her husband had a whopping $18 of self-employment income and took $803 of professional organization dues as a business expense. Her self-employment income does not qualify for the pass though entity tax break created by the 2017 tax law. Above the line deductions simply convert your self-employment income to the numbers they were be if you were an employee of someone else with the same benefits. The marginal tax rate that Warren pays on each additional dollar of self-employment income (e.g. writing) is about 40.94% from all applicable taxes combined.
Against Bob: yes; Against Cindy: no I'm going to borrow @Trish's example because it's a good one although the conclusions they reach are wrong. Alice made a green box. Bob signs an NDA never to tell anyone that Alice made a green box, and there is a clause in it that if the NDA is breached, the box is red. Bob tells Cindy that Alice made a green box. Cindy has a patent on making green boxes. Cindy sues Alice and in the lawsuit puts Bob on the stand. Situation 1 So, the box is objectively green and objectively a breach of Cindy's patent on green boxes. Bob is on the stand and is required to answer questions honestly and no contract can prevent him from doing so. He testifies that the box is green. This would be a breach of contract except that a clause that requires a breach of the law (perjury in this case) is void for public policy reasons so Bob cannot be sued for this. However, he can be sued for the initial breach - he may have a public policy defense here because Alice was breaking the law, however, it’s easy enough to construct a scenario where Alice was innocent but suffered loss from Bob’s disclosure. Cindy can say what she likes because she is not bound by the NDA. Cindy wins, Alice loses. Situation 2 Cindy dies - after a long and happy life so we won't grieve too much. To Bob's surprise, he inherits Cindy's green box patent of which he was previously in complete ignorance of. Bob sues Alice for breaching Cindy's now his, patent. So, the box is objectively green and objectively a breach of Cindy's patent on green boxes. However, Bob agreed with Alice in the contract that the box is red and so, legally for matters between Alice and Bob the box is legally red (notwithstanding that everyone knows it's green) and is not in breach of Bob's patent. This sort of stuff has a name - a legal fiction. Adoption is a legal fiction - adoptive parents are (legally) parents; biological parents of adopted children are (legally) strangers. Alice wins, Bob loses.
The party that made the overpayment would have the right to sue you for "unjust enrichment" or "breach of contract" (since the terms of service no doubt provide or strongly imply that you are entitled to only one payment per sale), if you didn't voluntarily return the overpayment following a demand to do so, even though you received it through no fault of your own. Most of the core cases involve clerical errors in the bank account number used for a bank deposit. In general, there is a right to recover an accidental transfer of property to another, even in the absence of a clearly applicable contractual arrangement. As another example, if you were accidentally given a valuable coat at a coat check by accident and didn't notice it until later, the true owner would have a right to have it returned. The FTC regulation applies (as demonstrated by the link cited in the question) to intentional unsolicited deliveries of merchandise (which would always be tangible personal property by definition) to you through the mail. It does not apply to transfers of money, or to the accidental mis-delivery of property to the wrong person or the wrong address. The law in question is as follows: 39 U.S. Code § 3009 - Mailing of unordered merchandise (a) Except for (1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as such, and (2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization soliciting contributions, the mailing of un­ordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15. (b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. (c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications. (d) For the purposes of this section, “un­ordered merchandise” means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
Non-Profits Need Not Have Owners But Must Have A Lawful Purpose Any non-profit company, for example, a 501(c)(3), is ownerless and can be run by a self-perpetuating board if desired, rather than having delegates that provide an outside source for new board members. In that case you have to set forth a purpose of the company or trust, to which its assets and profits must be used, and it must be managed in accordance with that purpose. You can also have a "private foundation" that is effectively ownerless, again with a designated charitable purpose. Generally speaking, the law limits how much compensation can be paid to officers and employees of such a company and restricts self-dealing transactions by such a company. You probably cannot create a valid trust or business with no beneficiaries and no designated charitable purpose which is supposed to merely accumulate its profits and assets. Ownerless Cooperatives Are An Oxymoron Your reference in this and other posts to an "ownerless cooperative" is basically an oxymoron. A cooperative is an entity owned by a class of people who have a contractual relationship with the entity (usually consumers or producers) who are the owners of the company with voting control and who are entitled to an adjustment of their transaction prices with the cooperative via a rebate or surplus check proportionate to the dollar volume of their dealings with the cooperative (Northwest Mutual, must rural electric companies, and most credit unions would be examples of consumer cooperatives, Ocean Spray is a good example of a producers cooperative). An ownerless entity is pretty much by definition not a cooperative. An excellent overview of forms of entity organization other than investor owned stock corporations can be found in The Ownership of Enterprise by Henry Hansmann. The Life Of The Law Is Not Math Or Logic Honestly, it sounds like, in your several posts on the subject, that you are attempting the hide the ball of an ulterior purposes which is material to the legality and organization of an entity. The law is not like science or mathematics. You can't prove a bunch of isolated propositions and then string them together logically. The law operates on an entire comprehensive "fact pattern" and even if every step of your chain of reasoning to an ultimately result is supported by legal authority, this does not mean that this will be the result you get when you put all of the pieces together. That kind of logical reasoning doesn't work in a legal context. The heading of this section is a paraphrase of a famous statement about the law by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience... The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. from "The Common Law" (1881) at page 1. Blockchains Are Not The Legal Innovation That They Claim To Be Using blockchain technology to manage "tokens" of voting control in an entity is ultimately completely irrelevant. Blockchain technology is just another alternative to certificated shares, shares kept on an ownership ledger, or shares kept through secondary shareholding intermediaries or brokers. The technology used to keep track of voting control or economic ownership is irrelevant, and some common entities (e.g. homeowner's associations) have ownership that is basically determined via a crude public blockchain called the county clerk and recorder's records. People who think that blockchains provide any significant legal innovation into anything (e.g. here) are fundamentally misguided and typically are not people familiar with the law who have misconceptions about how the law works. Also, contrary to the hype, blockchains are not fraud-proof and indeed, involve serious systemic risks of instability because an error in an old transaction can disrupt lots of current claims. Claims such as those made here that blockchain transactions are irrefutable are naive and basically false. A block chain is a bit like a real property record system without an adverse possession rule to make ancient glitches irrelevant. Moreover, blockchains are a solution to a non-problem. Authenticating ownership and voting rights, economic entitlements, and corporate actions is something that has never posed a very significant economic problem ever since writing was invented. These are economic problems that were already effectively solved in the days of the Minoans, and widespread ownership of well authenticated entities by numerous ever shifting groups of owners was a problem well in hand by the days of the British East India Company. Anonymous Ownership Or Contribution Records Are Illegal Truly anonymous ownership, however, is legally prohibited, even though ownership need not be made a matter of public record. In the case of for profit entities, by securities regulation which requires disclosure for purposes of exercising voting rights and for disclosing large blocks of ownership as required by law, and for purposes of tax law. In the case of non-profit entities, it is prohibited by virtue of laws regulating private foundations that impose tax requirements when certain concentrations of contributions come from a small, related group of people. In the case of political organizations, campaign finance laws require disclosure.
If the owner of the intellectual property leaves property subject to the jurisdiction of the state of Washington, and it is determined that the owner is dead and has no heirs, then per RCW 11.08.140 it is designated escheat property. Then the following sections specify that title to the property vests in the state. The Department of Revenue has jurisdiction over that property, which has the duty to protect and conserve the property for the benefit of the permanent common school fund. There is no general answer to the question of what would best benefit the school fund. Any form of giving it away would not benefit the school fund, at least if there was an viable option for sale / licensing. There are provisions that relate to the possibility that an heir is eventually uncovered, but I will assume that no heir ever appears. Ohio law is similar. The decendant's property escheats to the state in case there is no heir. Then under ORC 2105.07, the prosecuting attorney of the county in which letters of administration are granted upon such estate shall collect and pay it over to the county treasurer. Such estate shall be applied exclusively to the support of the common schools of the county in which collected.