Can one legally barter services if each party declares they are donating the service? I've read where the IRS will try to enforce the "real market value" of a service and require you to pay tax on it. I'm wondering how enforceable this is, and if you can get around it if its less than $500 in value or if you declare that it is a "donated service" on each side. https://www.irs.gov/uac/four-things-to-know-about-bartering-1
Two people exchanging goods or services on a commercial basis and then pretending it was two gifts is tax evasion. It's not a gift. It's a commercial sale that you lie about by 'putting' a different 'label' on it. Sometimes two people will give mutual gifts, e.g. if you come to my wedding: I give you dinner, you give me some kitchenware. Yet there's nothing commercial about it. So that's not income for either party. However, if you're talking about two businesses making sales to each other, that is very much income, regardless of what you badge it.
Generally, such sanctions prevent certain sorts of transactions in goods and services with nationals or entities of the nation under sanction. The exact list of transactions prohibited or restricted varies. If Open source software were being provided as a service, so that the recipient paid directly for a license, or for customization or configuration work, or for some sort of consulting or assistance, such transactions could be banned or restricted by a sanctions regime, but might not be. (If the sanctions included that particular class of transactions.) However, if it is merely a matter of an open source product being published, for anyone to download, install, and use, I don't see how that would be barred or restricted by any sanctions of the sort recently in use.
It has to be 'liquidated damages', since a penalty clause is unenforceable. It has to have a reasonable relation to the party's legitimate interest. The point is that it has to represent a good faith estimate of the actual damage.
When the buyer hears &quot;to avoid sales tax&quot; and hears the seller describing as a gift something that s/he knows was nothing of the sort, a reasonable buyer would know that this was at best suspicious, and would find out if this was legal. But assuming that the buyer accepted the seller's suggestion ignorantly and in good faith, the buyer can file a report of the transaction and pay any tax that should have been paid. The exact way of doing this will vary based on the laws of the buyer's jurisdiction (state-level if in the US) which is not given in the question. Such a report and payment might not prevent the local tax authorities from assessing an additional penalty. Criminal charges seem unlikely, but would be possible. If the seller was a used car dealer, the authorities might want the buyer to testify against the seller. They buyer might be wise to consult a lawyer with expertise in sales tax issues in the buyer's jurisdiction. Such a lawyer could advise on exactly what the buyer's legal obligation was, and how to avoid or minimize penalties or other consequences.
The issue of who pays directly for the items and/or to contractors is irrelevant. The important thing is to memorialize the agreement/arrangement in writing so as to preempt or solve eventual disputes. A clearly written agreement signed by the parties would supersede any presumption of conditions and rights arising solely from the parties' conduct.
Transfer pricing is something that is required when related parties provide good or services to each other, in order to determine what part of the profit from the eventual sale of the goods or services is allocated to the initial transferor and what part is allocated to the final seller of the good or service. There is no country in the world where transfer pricing is illegal, and ther is no reason that it should be. The legal issue in transfer pricing is how to determine it correctly to be in compliance with tax and financial accounting standards that apply to it, and the proper transfer price for tax purposes is not necessarily the proper transfer price for financial accounting purposes. Generally speaking, transfer prices are supposed to be set at an amount equal to the price that would have been reached in an arms length transaction between unrelated third parties. If the transfer price is too high, the &quot;buyer&quot; isn't paying enough taxes on the final sale. If the transfer price is too low, the &quot;buyer&quot; is paying too much tax on the final sale. Abuses in transfer pricing tend to occur when they are set to allocate almost all profits to the company in the low tax jurisdiction, and almost no profits to the related company in a high tax jurisdiction. The proper means of setting transfer taxes is a highly technical area of international taxation and financial accounting. This would theoretically allow a company to sell minerals for 1 dollar a ton. The proper transfer price of minerals is their fair market value. It is impossible to know if $1 a ton is too high, too low, or just right, without knowing more about the transaction.
Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, there has to be an agreement for there to be price fixing. If the parties do not agree to engage in price-fixing or other anti-competitive behavior, there is no violation. There does not needed to be a written, explicit contract memorializing the agreement, but there does need to be more than just encouragement to change prices. Telling one person to charge more isn't price-fixing, because the person making the suggestion could then just leave his own prices in place and enjoy the competitive advantage. But if that person were to say, "We should raise our prices," and then they both did, you'd probably have a pretty good Sherman Act case.
They aren't "imposing tax laws at the state level", and the states are still perfectly free to award whatever credits they like. There's a more complete explanation here. Before 2017, if you paid, say, $30,000 in state taxes, you could take a $30,000 deduction from your federal taxable income, thus reducing your federal income taxes by some fraction of $30,000 (depending on your tax bracket). The 2017 tax bill placed a $10,000 limit on this deduction. Some states responded by creating a provision where you could donate $30,000 to the state and receive a $30,000 credit against your state taxes owed - so you end up paying the same amount to the state, but now you characterize it as a charitable donation, which is still deductible from your federal taxable income. The new IRS regulation says that such a "donation" will no longer be deductible from your federal taxable income; that's all. Your state can still issue you a tax credit for such a donation if they want - the federal government has no control over that - but any such credit will reduce the amount you are allowed to deduct on your federal return, making the whole exercise pointless. The federal government certainly has the power to determine how you should compute your income for the purposes of your federal income taxes, including what you may or may not deduct. That's the power they're using here.