Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

#51

Post by ceejay »

delegate wrote: post #40
oelmekki wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? That's the only reason I can think of which would make it possible for charities to fit government action scale. Also, I wonder how local non profit organize against a nation wide invasion (not saying it's impossible, but you have to prepare for it, which costs money). I live in a country wh…

>I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? I live in Spain, there's no such thing here. What I propose is for people to have the ability to specify what their taxes are spent on. I dislike it when government wastes tax money on useless or corrupt projects, military, police, surveillance and other such things, which I personally woul…

There appears to be some merit to what you're proposing. But what about long-term issues, such as climate change, etc. How are a group of people going to convince a large enough group to pay money for it, and who is going to enforce it?

Also, things that don't affect majority of people will probably never get enough funding. For example blindness. How many blind people do you know? And do you think anyone is going to be convinced that a single kickstarter-type campaign is going to solve it? I imagine even the most motivated donors will start considering dropping out after 2 decades of spending money when they've produced no measurable results to curing blindness (or paralysis, cancer, etc).

EDIT: In fact, the more I think about it, the more it becomes obvious this sort of system couldn't work on a massive scale (such as a scale necessary to do what a government does). Each person is probably only going to be able to comprehend the need to address perhaps hundreds of specific issues. But my guess is that governments, in total, deal with probably 10's of thousands if not more different types of issues on a daily basis. Not only that but those issues that a citizen does comprehend, will he / she need to keep up with how each issue is being addressed? After all, otherwise I'm potentially just throwing money down a rat hole. Sounds like more than just a full-time job on its own. How would one find enough time to do that and still make money to bring home to their families, etc..

Re: Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

#52

Post by paulsutter »

Fluxenein wrote: post #48
paulsutter wrote: post #18

You can't omit Bitcoin transactions from your tax return just because they seem anonymous. Concealment is the very definition of tax evasion, "Evasion... involves deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, some attempt to color or obscure events or to make things seem other than they are" Quoting in full since its among the most misunderstood yet important distinctions in tax: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-00…

So, if an individual buys BitCoin with some capital to not pay taxes for said amount of capital ,is he evading or avoiding?

IANAL but example taxable transactions might be to sell bitcoins for a gain, or to use appreciated bitcoins in a barter transaction. Losses are also taxable transactions, but in a good way.

Mining is awkward, since I believe mined coins are taxed as income on the day they are mined, even if you don't transact.

Best to talk to an accountant, of course, and not rely on the advice of a random HN commenter like me.

Re: Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

#53

Post by enraged_camel »

mindcrime wrote: post #42
oelmekki wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? That's the only reason I can think of which would make it possible for charities to fit government action scale. Also, I wonder how local non profit organize against a nation wide invasion (not saying it's impossible, but you have to prepare for it, which costs money). I live in a country wh…

I'm ok with paying taxes for those. Your being OK with taxes is completely irrelevant to anything outside of yourself. As long as taxation is practiced the way it is here in the US (eg, enforced at the end of a gun barrel) it's theft, and it's immoral, no matter how noble the purported objective(s). Eliminating taxation does not, however, preclude the idea of voluntary, collective funding for important causes, includ…

>>As long as taxation is practiced the way it is here in the US (eg, enforced at the end of a gun barrel) it's theft

How so? The government is collecting the money you owe them. And you owe them money because every single day you use and benefit from things the government has funded, such as as infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, military protection and much, much more. It's true that there is no way to "opt-out" of those things but that's simply because it would be impossible to create a system where people can do so that is not massively and incredibly complex.

Besides, do you really want to live in a world where your house burns down because your neighbor has "opted out" of fire protection and their house fire spread to yours?

Re: Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

#54

Post by Fluxenein »

paulsutter wrote: post #52
Fluxenein wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if an individual buys BitCoin with some capital to not pay taxes for said amount of capital ,is he evading or avoiding?

IANAL but example taxable transactions might be to sell bitcoins for a gain, or to use appreciated bitcoins in a barter transaction. Losses are also taxable transactions, but in a good way. Mining is awkward, since I believe mined coins are taxed as income on the day they are mined, even if you don't transact. Best to talk to an accountant, of course, and not rely on the advice of a random HN commenter like me.

Thanks, that helped. GNU Taler will be something to look forward to now.

Re: Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

#55

Post by CPLX »

mindcrime wrote: post #19

The solution to this is obvious: eliminate the IRS. And the income tax. And most of the federal government. Spin off the actually useful bits as private non-profit foundations (or possibly even for-profit companies depending on the scenario) and let them earn their own keep based on the value they provide. A sufficiently small government can be funded without an income tax, as history shows us.

There are several places in the world that don't have functioning governments. Perhaps you could go live in one for awhile and report back.

Re: Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

#56

Post by Daishiman »

Fluxenein wrote: post #48
paulsutter wrote: post #18

You can't omit Bitcoin transactions from your tax return just because they seem anonymous. Concealment is the very definition of tax evasion, "Evasion... involves deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, some attempt to color or obscure events or to make things seem other than they are" Quoting in full since its among the most misunderstood yet important distinctions in tax: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-00…

So, if an individual buys BitCoin with some capital to not pay taxes for said amount of capital ,is he evading or avoiding?

If they're reporting it, sure. Companies defer profits all the time to do this within the bounds of what is legally acceptable. What's not fine is if the numbers only add up if you're not reporting.

Re: Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

#57

Post by manarth »

kybernetyk wrote: post #9
bunburying wrote: post #8

As at least one person has already struggled with this (subthread now deleted), hopefully the following will help others. To read the article in full, please click the "web" link above, between "past" and "[...] comments". WSJ articles can be read in full, if you click through from Google search results. Note: simply copying the Google link and pasting it here won't work. Presumably Google needs to be the referrer.

Why do we allow WSJ submissions here if they don't want us to read their content? I mean sure, you can go the "click web, then the right Google result" route. But that's like submitting a link to Adobe's most recent Photoshop update and then tell people "you can download Photoshop for free by starting your Bittorent client". WSJ wants to hide behind a paywall. That's fine for them. But HN shouldn't be sending them tr…

  But that's like submitting a link to Adobe's most recent Photoshop update and then tell people "you can download Photoshop for free by starting your Bittorent client".
I would offer a different analogy: "Here's a link to Photoshop, and Adobe will let you use it for free on a 30-day trial".

No-one's cracking the WSJ site, sharing someone else's subscription, or any other dubious behaviour: we're simply saying that "WSJ choose to disable their paywall for visitors referred by Google, so if you wish to avoid their paywall, you can use this practice, which WSJ allow".

Re: Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

#58

Post by BoorishBears »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #49
mindcrime wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people that use it?

That does not work because most infrastructure needs to be subsidized because it's too expensive for the users of it. A good example is a road up a mountain where only 15 people live. The cost of that road would always be too high for those people.

If you go all the way with the concept, the idea is that people will only build up in the mountains if they can do without the road, or afford to include the cost of the road in their home (so the price of living in the mountains goes up astronomically, and fewer resources are being devoted to the minority that lives in them)

Not necessarily agreeing with the concept, but it only really works when taken to some extremes

Re: Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

#59

Post by Pxtl »

pjc50 wrote: post #29
delegate wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. Taxes are the basis of state, which uses taxes to develop and maintain its capability to threaten you with violence if you dont't pay taxes. It's a recursion which has plagued the world for centuries. The whole system can in theory be replaced with non-profit investments funds, which crowdfund social projects. You dont even have to elect 'leaders', because citizens will be involved full time in running thi…

> You dont even have to elect 'leaders', because citizens will be involved full time in running things Those are the leaders, they're just 100% more self-appointed and unaccountable. Your whole scheme is just Bolshevism with the terminology changed.

More like HOAs.

Re: Court Rules IRS Can Seek Information on Bitcoin Customers

#60

Post by god_bless_texas »

I initially cringed when I saw this, so I went to go download my transactions from coinbase. I realized after looking through them that some of my BTC outbound transfers were to btc-e, and some of those were to cryptsy. So, considering cryptsy kicked the bucket with much of my coin, and I can't get their records...now what? Those outbound transfers are financial losses, and in the grand scheme I lost money due to Cryptsy; but will the IRS settle for that?
Post reply on HN