Pistols manufactured in Mexico are imported as a kit of parts, then assembled as "Made in America!"
Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
111–120 of 307 posts
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#112Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ford lost in 2019. An appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.[0] My non-lawyer understand of the issue wasn’t so much that they were avoiding a tariff (“tariff engineering”), but that they were removing the seats upon entry. In contrast with the BRAT where the dummy seats were still there when sold. [0]: https://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/03/ford-transit-connect-imp...
I wonder if they could, in theory, sell you the car for 150% of it's final price (so that they seats are there when sold), then buy back the seats immediately for 50% of its price. The invoice would say something like: Car with passenger seats: $15,000; Passenger seat buyback: $5,000; Total after buyback: $10,000. That way everyone gets what they want, and they've technically sold it with the seats still installed.
Law isn't interpreted by computers, it is interpreted by human judges, who generally aren't impressed by such hacks (though you might get lucky).
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#114Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if they could, in theory, sell you the car for 150% of it's final price (so that they seats are there when sold), then buy back the seats immediately for 50% of its price. The invoice would say something like: Car with passenger seats: $15,000; Passenger seat buyback: $5,000; Total after buyback: $10,000. That way everyone gets what they want, and they've technically sold it with the seats still installed.
Law isn't interpreted by computers, it is interpreted by human judges, who generally aren't impressed by such hacks (though you might get lucky).
Yeah, when the law allows additional sanction for willful/knowing violation, courts will not only often see through your “clever hack”, but also see it as evidence of deliberate wrongdoing.
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ford lost in 2019. An appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.[0] My non-lawyer understand of the issue wasn’t so much that they were avoiding a tariff (“tariff engineering”), but that they were removing the seats upon entry. In contrast with the BRAT where the dummy seats were still there when sold. [0]: https://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/03/ford-transit-connect-imp...
This doesn't really assuage his concern. The government is still dictating what you do with items. CBP is one of the worst infringers upon personal rights, I wouldn't defend them.
> The government is still dictating what you do with items.
Well, no, they are dictating what taxes you owe based on intent, and using consistent patterns of behavior as evidence of ongoing intent.
This isn't Ford changing their mind about the purpose of the vehicle after importing them.
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite true. For instance, I could sell my losses in a growth fund only to buy a different growth fund (not the same index though) and I get to stay in the market. Ideally you would do this on day 364 of losses to maximize the tax incentive.
It's not a tax incentive though - an incentive encourages you to do something, nobody is encouraged to lose money . Also, if one were to do the above, and the growth fund went up, you'd wind up paying taxes on that gain which would offset the tax deduction you took on the loss when you eventually sold it, whereas you could have just stayed in, waited for it to go back up, and you'd be at a wash. If someone followed y…
They are encouraging people to sell.
Most people wouldn’t care, but if you’re in a high tax bracket and you can sell one to buy another and keep your risk profile roughly the same, you’ll do it.
People prefer to pay long term gains and take short term losses. The benefits work in your favor and against the govt. The tax code reflects that, and has for a long time.
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#118Taxes are one of the most powerful incentives in the world. For instance, dumping positions at loss before new years eve might help you with your tax bill since you have losses. And of course, setting up a company in a country where you did buy a lot of spectrum and you have huge losses, effectively creating a tax credit ( https://www.reuters.com/article/telefonica-germany/update-2-... )
Selling stocks at a loss is only helpful in the short term, or if you don’t think those stocks are going back up. If you harvest a loss for a tax deduction on December 31, and the stock goes back up by the end of January so you’d be even, you are way behind – because the loss only comes back to you at your highest tax rate.
> and the stock goes back up by the end of January so you’d be even, you are way behind
there are ETFs created for the sole purpose of circumventing this, by providing exposure to the same asset or market forces
the wash sale regulation has amendment aimed at preventing this by prohibiting trades of "substantially similar securities", but I don't think it passes muster or has any teeth. you report all the trades to the IRS its up to them to figure out if your UltraShares 3x Inverse Pez Dispenser ETF is substantially similar to the Direxion one
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#119This is like how tax policies gave rise to White Claw
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/how-tax-policy-gave-...
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#120That's so unethical - and Alan Sugar is held up as an example of a business genius?