Is there any penalty for intentionally over-reporting income on your 1040? When filing their USA Federal taxes, someone might want to state more income than they actually had, for reasons. This would result in paying more taxes than the person actually owes. Specifically, this unreal income would be reported on 1040 Schedule C, line 1 or line 6. Are there any laws or IRS regulations which prohibit that? Since the "error" (actually, deception) is in the government's favor, would there be any penalty other than $0?
26 USC 7206: Any person who— (1) Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter [...] shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. ("Return", as defined in 26 USC 6696, includes an income tax return.) This clause notably doesn't care whose favor the falsification was in, or why you did it. You knew it wasn't true and you put it on your tax return anyway, and you declared under penalty of perjury that it was true and correct. That's a felony, end of story. (Paragraph (4) of this section covers some other types of fraud done "with intent to evade" taxes, but that restriction does not apply to paragraph (1).) The likelihood of actually being prosecuted in such an instance is beyond the scope of this site. But in the given case, the falsification really isn't in the government's favor. The purpose was to become eligible to collect government social security benefits, which you otherwise wouldn't be eligible for. Presumably you would only bother to do this if you thought you'd collect more in benefits than you pay in extra tax, which means the government loses in the long run. This also eliminates any chance you'd have of claiming the falsification was "immaterial": it affected your eligibility for social security, and you knew that - it was the whole reason you did it.
No, nor can I request a copy of your tax return. See 5 USC 552a. Record maintained on an individual are not subject to disclosure.
There is a clear conflict of interest - or the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest - here. On the one hand, you are supposed to be looking for a good deal for your employer - within reason, of course. On the other hand, you want to make as much money for yourself as you can by claiming as high a rental fee as is reasonable. Most employers have policies against this. This is like hiring your side company as a vendor. You should follow your employer's policies for making sure his is totally above board, or just stay elsewhere.
Yes, of course you still owe it. There's no logical reason why ceasing to be a citizen should relieve you of existing obligations. The State Department mentions this explicitly Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed or may commit in the future which violate United States law, or escape the repayment of financial obligations, including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad. I think the &quot;may&quot; is just to cover their butts - I can't find any indication of any provision that would forgive tax debts when you renounce. Indeed, renouncing your citizenship may cause you to owe more tax, because of the expatriation tax. Basically, all your unrealized capital gains are treated as if they were realized and taxed on the day before your expatriation, and you owe capital gains tax on them.
Both of these answers assume U.S. law. Craigslist has no liability per a statute commonly known as Section 230. In a barter transaction, each party must declare as income on their tax return the fair market value of the goods or services received, by a commercially reasonable means (subject to audit), less any basis (or, in the case of accrual accounting taxpayers, at least, any cost of good sold expense deduction) applicable to goods parted with. Under changes to the tax law effective January 1, 2018, this answer applies even if the barter involved tangible personal property of "like kind" which was previously not taxable under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 1031 continues to provide special treatment to barters involving investment real estate.
Can an employer charge employee/contractor a processing fee for payment? No. The matter depends on whether the person qualifies as employee for purposes of the British Columbia Employment Standards Act. Your description suggests that you meet criterion (b) of the definition of employee insofar as you are (i.e., if you are) "a person an employer allows, directly or indirectly, to perform work normally performed by an employee". See section 1(1) of the Act. Section 21(1) prohibits an employer to "directly or indirectly, withhold, deduct or require payment of all or part of an employee's wages for any purpose", and item (2) prohibits the employer to "require an employee to pay any of the employer's business costs except as permitted by the regulations". There is no indication that the alleged business cost of e-transfers would be one such exception. do I have any recourse for such a small amount of money that isn't worth starting a law suit over? You have the option to file a complaint in "an office of the Employment Standards Branch". See sections 74 et seq for further details. You are not specifying the amount of the e-transfer that is being deducted from your compensation. The smaller the amount(s) at issue, the more important it will be for your complaint to persuasively explain how it is not "frivolous, vexatious or trivial". See section 76(c). Directing the employer's attention to the aforementioned statutory prohibition prior to filing a complaint tends to disprove allegations of vexation. That is because you are giving the employer an opportunity to mend its conduct and avert the proceedings that otherwise would take place. That being said, a very occasional cost of few cents is very likely to lead to a conclusion of vexation or bad faith regardless of your preliminary steps. In most other contexts, though, it is in your best interest to stay aware of the obligations that are being presented/proposed to you so that your actions do not constitute an acceptance of terms &amp; conditions you would rather reject. Not all contracts come in the form of a written document signed by the parties.
Yes, money received from Kickstarter campaigns is usually considered taxable income. Who pays the taxes and how much (if any) they pay depends on how much the teenager makes, how old they are, and whether they are claimed as a dependant by someone else. For information about taxing children see IRS Pub. 929. As pointed out in the comments, certain campaign contributions could be considered nontaxable "gifts" by the IRS. There are also taxable gifts but the taxes are paid and reported by the gift giver. You will want to talk to a tax professional about these. It is worth noting that interest on gifts is taxable unearned income unless the gifts were set up under a UGMA trust, which has its own rules. You can deduct most expenses from income, as pointed out in the comments. This too is covered by Pub. 929.
The legal requirement to hand over the returns is found in 26 U.S. Code § 6103: (f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress (1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. Enforcement is found in 26 U.S. Code § 7214 (a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States— ... (3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment; or ... shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution. These punishments are essentially identical to those in Section 7213, which describe the punishments for those who unlawfully release returns. I've seen that section quoted in some articles as the basis for punishing failure to provide requested returns to the Chair of the House Ways and Means committee, but I'm not really seeing how that section covers non-compliance. Non-compliance seems only covered by Section 7214, which requires the "intent to defeat" (or various other issues, such as not disclosing known violations to the Secretary, etc.). That may be hard to prove in this scenario, and part of the stalling by Mnuchin may in part because they are exploring if they can build a strong case that it wasn't his intent to defeat the title. The quote of his you note is particularly on point on this, as he explicitly says he intends to obey the law; he's just questioning the constitutional issues involved.