Can parents be taxed for giving gifts to children? Are there scenarios where parents would be taxed for giving gifts to their children, such as on birthdays, Christmas, etc.? Would gifts be subject to gift taxes if the amount exceeds $15,000/$30,000 (the current maximum that's subject to the annual exclusion for single parents and married parents, respectively)? Also, what about the kiddie tax? (I assume the kiddie tax applies just to monetary income, rather than physical gifts.) For gift taxes, I've assumed that holiday-themed gifts to children wouldn't be the focus, but it appears children aren't exempt the way spouses are. Does this mean that to avoid gift taxes, parents must be careful not to exceed the amount covered by the annual exclusion for each child? And for the kiddie tax, would this mainly apply to things like an allowance, not one-time gifts?
(This is not meant as personalized tax advice - consult a tax lawyer or accountant for advice on your own tax situation.) As background, it's helpful to remember why the gift tax exists - it's to close a loophole in the estate tax. If a wealthy parent dies and leaves all their assets to their child, the government collects estate tax on the amount of the estate. So the parent might think to circumvent this by gifting most of their assets to the child before they die. That would deprive the government of a lot of revenue, so the gift tax ensures that such gifts are taxed in a roughly similar way to inheritances. So yes, if a parent gives their children birthday presents whose value exceeds the annual exclusion, then the parent must report the gift to the IRS (Form 709), and pay gift tax if necessary. Note that they only have to actually pay tax once the total amount of the gifts over their lifetime exceeds a lifetime exclusion amount, currently about $12 million. This tax is really only meant to hit the &quot;1%&quot;. It doesn't matter whether the gifts are of money or other items of value. &quot;The gift tax applies to the transfer by gift of any type of property.&quot; If it only applied to money, there'd be another loophole: the parent could dodge the tax by spending all their assets on a $20 million dollar gold bar (or painting, jewelry, rare postage stamp, etc) and give that to the child instead, which the child could then turn around and sell. The &quot;kiddie tax&quot; is an income tax on children. Gifts are generally not taxable income to the recipient, so the child would not be liable for any income tax, no matter how large the gift or how it is given. (The gift tax is not an income tax and is imposed on the giver, not the recipient.)
This would be infringement. It generally doesn't matter that you're giving things away for free. Keep in mind that the point of these laws is not only to prevent third parties from making money off the creator's ideas, but also to protect the creator's ability to make money. If you're providing free knock-off Winnie the Pooh products, that cuts into the market for the creator's legitimate products.
So I can block children under 13, but I can't tell them that? You can tell them after they fail, you cannot tell them on the asking screen. Then what is the correct way to block children under 13 to access my website and still comply with COPPA? I agree with you that it is odd that they recommend using a cookie but they do!* So you have a entry page with a simple question, "Please indicate your age" and then block based on the response. That's it. Note that the rule is neutral. This means that you do not need to disguise your purpose or try to trick people into entering their correct age. *I think that what is happening here is that any parent who wants to complain to their legislator can be met with the response, "If your kid is so sneaky that they are using different computers to lie about their age what do you want us to do about it?" The fact is, this scheme keeps innocent kids from seeing stuff they shouldn't; the sneaky ones are going to find a way.
Oliver or his shell corporation could have directly forgiven the debt as a gift to the debtors. As a gift, it would not have to be reported as income, according to the IRS. In that case, he would need to file Form 709 and he would have to pay federal gift tax. There is an annual exclusion of $14,000 per donee, which probably is a drop in the bucket. It may not be required to pay tax on gifts to a 501(c)(3) organization, since the gift-bump is offset by the associated charitable gift deduction. The charity can then forgive the debt as a gift (and as tax-exempt, would not have to pay gift tax). In that sense, the second transfer was necessary, although it would not have been if RIP had directly obtained the debt (or if CARP were a 503(c)(3)).
It is perfectly legal and, many would argue, reasonable to have secular reasons to do something that happen to align with religious reasons. In other words, just because there's a religious reason to do something doesn't invalidate secular reasons to do the same thing. The New York Times had an article in 2013 that explained the origin of the federal holidays in 1870: Congress acknowledged that Jan. 1 is "commonly called New Year's Day" and Dec. 25 is "commonly called Christmas Day." and further on in the article: If you read the language of the [1870] bill, it's clear that Congress chose dates commonly celebrated as holidays by the American people, not for religious reasons but because of a history of recognition and celebration on those dates. The federal holidays make sense from an efficiency perspective. If a significant number of federal employees will be taking those days off for celebratory purposes then it doesn't make sense to open federal offices if there's not enough staff. Federal holidays only apply to federal employees and the District of Columbia. There's no requirement that your private employer, state employer or you recognize those holidays.
Probably A valid gift requires: Intention of donor to give the gift to the donee (donative intent) Delivery of gift to donee. Acceptance of gift by donee. As the legal guardian, parent could refuse acceptance on behalf of the child. Again, in the same capacity, they could limit or restrict use of the gift providing while the child remained a child.
You are describing a charity. In the simplest case, a charitable foundation could be established to receive donations and dispense payments for medical services. There are various irrelevant non-legal reasons why it might not work (e.g. insufficient contributions relative to demand). The main legal concerns of such a foundation are its tax liability (do they have to pay income taxes on contributions?), and local regulations (how do you distinguish between a scam and a real charity?). The tax question is primarily about 501(c)(3) status, and for the most part there should be no problems with charitably dispensing contributions, though there is a requirement that no part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual – perhaps the CEO would be an exception to the universality of the program (but providing equivalent service could be a pre-tax employment benefit). A recipient does not have to pay tax on a gift, owing to the &quot;medical exclusion&quot; Registration is a state-level matter, here is the Washington law. Nothing in that law says &quot;you can't provide coverage of medical expenses&quot;, and no maximum income level is imposed on the recipient of a charitable gift. The concern of these regulations is mainly record-keeping and access to records, not on specific ways of benefiting the community. Since unlike taxes contributions cannot be coerced, this means that some people might not pay what other people deem to be &quot;their fair share&quot;, which is, again, a political issue.
Children can enter contracts There seems to be this pervading myth that they can’t. This is weird because, if true, it would mean that a child couldn’t buy anything: a chocolate bar, a bus ride, a sandwich, because all sales involve a contract. What is true is that a contract is voidable by a minor. That is, they can walk away from it anytime until they turn 18 and for a reasonable time thereafter. They can’t do that if the contract is for “necessities” (all of the above examples are), if the contract is complete (again, all of the above) or if the contract is clearly for the benefit of the child (e.g. contracts involving the child’s education). Children do not normally need a parent’s permission or approval to enter a contract. So, the contract is binding on Mary and voidable by James. John’s involvement is irrelevant unless he is a party to the contract in some way such as if he is acting as a guarantor.