So, my wife said, you must also be below 40 employees. Make sure the guide line of your State, which is and will hold you liable, under do cause, of an hourly wage exceeding 40 employees.

So, if you maintain that limit, and do not exceed hourly wage limit, 27.5hrs part time employee, you will not be liable and indelible. This is only if you meet the criteria of the States Laws and Statutes.

kv

 

There are various rules that kick it at different sizes, starting at about 10 employees and ending, for the most part, somewhere around 50 employees.

I doubt I will ever have any employees aside from me, my wife, and our daughter. If things should go such that we need to go beyond that, I will deal with that bridge when we get to it, especially since all the laws at all levels will look substantially different by then.

 

WBahn,

The strategy you described, will work provided you have income sufficient to live. If you are working and then the LLCs are your sidelines, there should be no flags, as keeping the profits low does not raise any red flags. Low profits and no other source of income certainly begs questions, especially if your claiming things like the EITC. In fact when the income is questionable, the tax professional inquires further into how one supports themselves and their kids, documenting all for the government.

I wish you luck in your endeavors.

 

WBahn,

The strategy you described, will work provided you have income sufficient to live. If you are working and then the LLCs are your sidelines, there should be no flags, as keeping the profits low does not raise any red flags. Low profits and no other source of income certainly begs questions, especially if your claiming things like the EITC. In fact when the income is questionable, the tax professional inquires further into how one supports themselves and their kids, documenting all for the government.

I wish you luck in your endeavors.

To be sure, while we want to minimize taxation, we are not trying to evade taxes. A good fraction of the funds are going to be realized as taxable profits, particularly if we don't have other income. Right now, we are hoping that both me and my wife will have jobs and that we will be able to live on one of our incomes and use the other to pay of our house and invest for retirement and our daughter's college. The income from the planned financial LLC, which has the potential to become significant (we hope), will thus not be needed for living expenses and that will give us great flexibility to use the tax laws to minimize out taxes through perfectly legal and above board means without playing any fast-and-lose numbers games.

 

When it comes to tax, Cash is Cash, and showing income is in the bank.

The Bank is and will be the worst way to collect side income, to take it in cash, is different.

My Uncle a had Car Repair Business, Rest his soul, and was good at this. His clients were people he knew and the business did work for public. A small sign said, no tax if you pay in cash.

If this is not possible, don't do it. You don't want someone to report you. But, if you can take the cash. Spend it as needed.

Edit: And a cash deal has no receipt, just saying, this may not be for you. But, back in the day, it was a way to make your living, without being extorted.

Edit: Edit: Wan, this isn't for you. I just remembered also, never lend money and then put it in the bank, alway's get it in cash and spend as needed bills etc. If it keeps happening, your income increases and the IRS will be on your doorstep.

 

When it comes to tax, Cash is Cash, and showing income is in the bank.

The Bank is and will be the worst way to collect side income, to take it in cash, is different.

My Uncle a had Car Repair Business, Rest his soul, and was good at this. His clients were people he knew and the business did work for public. A small sign said, no tax if you pay in cash.

If this is not possible, don't do it. You don't want someone to report you. But, if you can take the cash. Spend it as needed.

Edit: And a cash deal has no receipt, just saying, this may not be for you. But, back in the day, it was a way to make your living, without being extorted.

Edit: Edit: Wan, this isn't for you. I just remembered also, never lend money and then put it in the bank, alway's get it in cash and spend as needed bills etc. If it keeps happening, your income increases and the IRS will be on your doorstep.

I think I already stated I am not going to evade taxes. I will do whatever I can to legally minimize my tax liability, I will work to make tax laws more rationale and sustainable, and I will work to make government more responsible and sustainable. Yes, I realize that the last two are mostly lost causes. But I spent a good portion of my life either being willing to take someone else's life in the defense of the concept of the Rule of Law or training others to be prepared to do so. What would it say of me if I then demonstrated through my own actions that I don't believe that the Law I was willing to fight, die, and kill for don't really apply to me?

Now, at some point it may well become my duty under my Oath to the Constitution to deprive the government of whatever funds I can, but we are not there yet. Sadly, that day may be coming much sooner than I had hoped, but we are not there yet.

 

I can fully respect that.

Edit:
I can fully respect that, Thank you for your Duty.

My Ancestors were in the service of the King William the Conquer for the Battle of York. Afterward, they farmed and Protected the Rye-Lands. The first was from Denmark as a mercenary. Blethyn and renamed by King Henry I of France. He was the first keeper of the rye-land, and of farmers and Knights. Later, the keepers of the rye, could not be paid, so then they made a deal with Williams brother, while Williams is away in Israel, in support of Israel and was at a heavy cost.

The deal was, you do not have to pay us any longer, just give us the land and we will still serv. Later the Land had a (Tax?) So, in order to stifle the increasing Tax. They became christian and made a deal with the Church and agreed to put an Abbey on the Land (The only reason to have the abby was to scribe and make liquor. Because, the church wanted control of the Land.) So, this, stopped the Tax, however they Govern the Land and as well protected the Abbey, on the land. Now they are in service to the Church and King. Later they became involved in many other things, not excluding Law and Government. I was born an antidisestablishmentarinist, in service to the King and follow a very ancient past of service, through my ancestry.

This country is founded and formed on the very ideals and system created in England and supplanted, in a new definition from history, here to form our current Government. Those ideals need to survive from those who would corrupt it.

Those who would stealing away the very heart of the constitution, are criminals and thief's.

Thank you for your service and I do honor your duty.

kv

Edit: Last night I drank to much, sorry for missing the earlier post.

 

IRS Publication 17 will give you a list of what is considered income ... WBahn, I know you are not considering evading, so this isn't meant for you.

If you read that publication, you will find a lot of things listed as income ... including bribes and bartering ... where you do a job for a friend and they do a job for you. Both are considered to have "received" a service worth some dollar value.

Do people always report this income? Probably not. It could be the nail in the coffin when the IRS calls upon the records.

History tells us Al Capone ran a cash only business. His arrest was for tax evasion, not bootlegging, or a host of other laws he violated.

I always recommend people to declare all their income. Gambling, door prizes, everything.

 

IRS Publication 17 will give you a list of what is considered income ... WBahn, I know you are not considering evading, so this isn't meant for you.

If you read that publication, you will find a lot of things listed as income ... including bribes and bartering ... where you do a job for a friend and they do a job for you. Both are considered to have "received" a service worth some dollar value.

Do people always report this income? Probably not. It could be the nail in the coffin when the IRS calls upon the records.

History tells us Al Capone ran a cash only business. His arrest was for tax evasion, not bootlegging, or a host of other laws he violated.

I always recommend people to declare all their income. Gambling, door prizes, everything.

Never mind, I read that wrong.

Edit: Joe, you look like one of my distant cousins. / Strange, but not unpredictable.

 

People think I look like Santa ... especially this time of year ....

I'm a transplant out here, from a middle atlantic state, via a host of other states, including the state of confusion.

 

IRS Publication 17 will give you a list of what is considered income ... WBahn, I know you are not considering evading, so this isn't meant for you.

If you read that publication, you will find a lot of things listed as income ... including bribes and bartering ... where you do a job for a friend and they do a job for you. Both are considered to have "received" a service worth some dollar value.

Do people always report this income? Probably not. It could be the nail in the coffin when the IRS calls upon the records.

History tells us Al Capone ran a cash only business. His arrest was for tax evasion, not bootlegging, or a host of other laws he violated.

I always recommend people to declare all their income. Gambling, door prizes, everything.

Yeah, and it is a lot easier said than done. I certainly don't make the effort (don't even think about it) to declare a door prize that I might get. I don't think I've ever received any that I actually had to declare because, IIRC, there is a limit below which it doesn't need to be declared.

But we all engage in barter from time to time and sometimes the nominal values can be pretty large. For years my stepmother (back before she was my stepmother) would come over and do my mom's hair and clean our house and we would do the maintenance on her car and repairs to her house. So was this a case of two parties engaged in barter or was it a case of two parties just being civil and helping each other out? When you neighbor, who has a green thumb, offers to do some landscaping for you if you will install his home network and get it running, it is really reasonable to expect that anyone is going to figure up the value of the transaction and report it as income?

Taking this even further, consider the case when you have two people who both need to do the same things -- they need to tune up their car and mow their lawn -- and each is fully capable and prepared to do both of those tasks for themselves. But if one of them hates mowing lawns while the other hates working on cars and so they agree that the first one will tune up both cars while the second one will mow both lawns. Now they are supposed to pay income tax on this exchange.

Or to really take it to extremes, imagine you have two neighbors that have watering restrictions so that one person can only water on MWF and the other can only water on TRS. But that conflicts with their work schedules and so they agree to water each other's lawns on the appropriate days. Now you have two people doing identical tasks just one adjacent properties and, technically, they should now be paying income tax on it.

But it is admittedly a real problem at some point. You have people that make their living through trade and barter and others who engage in trade and barter specifically to be able to evade taxes. So determining at what point these activities constitute commerce and at what point these activites only constitute civility is not an easy one.

 

Back in the day, this was commonplace:

"So was this a case of two parties engaged in barter or was it a case of two parties just being civil and helping each other out? When you neighbor, who has a green thumb, offers to do some landscaping for you if you will install his home network and get it running, it is really reasonable to expect that anyone is going to figure up the value of the transaction and report it as income?"


Back then, the point was NOT to report the income. Why do people think that a govt. entity....of any sort.....has to be involved/included in everything....nowadays?

Screw'em.

Think, and do; for yourself, and others.
Those Bastards blow enough money as it is.

Don't give them any more.

 

If an item has already been taxed at the point of sale, all the parts to assemble it were charged and taxed on profit earned and all peoples within the company are Taxed.

Now the item is or should not regardless of people making a living on trade as a mutual agreement, because they are of similar value. If I'm a DBA, and not an individual, now it should be taxed. But, where there is no DBA entity involved, just 2 people who agree to swap items of equal or lesser value.

I don't see the problem, by the way. My Family has 3 sitting Judges, one of them was blind.

What belongs to Caesar stays with Caesar. All else is free and as a Freeman......I choose to be and Live Free, following my Ancestors.

It's the very reason this Government was Created.

Still I don't have any answers' to the many questions how to solve it. But, I will not tear it to pieces, and I will fight anyone who tries to destroy it, til death, to my last breath.

kv

Edit: Blood has always been spilt defending, truth or to those who would illegitimately sussed the rights of a father Powers or Property possessions, claiming that a Child was of illegitimate Birth having no right to the Thrown.

http://www.biography.com/people/william-the-conqueror-9542227?page=1

This is why William was defending Israel, to recover what was lost and restore it, in the New World.

(This Architecture was form and fought for, for Thousands of years, waiting for this moment in time to re-emerg. Many lives have been in defense of it.)

The Tribe of Dan, one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, was known as Israel’s defender. The Danites were also known as seafarers. That much is in the Bible and more. Samson, who slew smote the Philistines hip and thigh, was the ultimate Danite, Judges 13:24 to 16:31. He slew 1,000 with the jawbone of an ass. Danites were charioteers who guarded Israel’s borders. They were also the only seafaring Israelites and may have emigrated to Mycenae, or had a colony there, after the Exodus for a people shows up in that region known to Homer as the Danaoi who subsequently leave the area for parts unknown. Among the golden grave ornaments in their Greek home at Mycenae was found one that seems to depict the Ark of the Covenant.

Another legend says that the Danites knew the secret places under the Temple Mount and rescued the Ark of Covenant taking it to a place of safety. The Dome of the Rock, a Muslim shrine, sits atop Temple Mount. There are voids and passages underneath but Muslims do not want them explored. They deny the existence of Solomon’s Temple and do not want it found as it would enhance an ancient Jewish claim to Palestine. If the Ark was hidden there, or even if it remains there, this might never be known. But, perhaps it was removed by the Danites.

From Mycenae, where did the Danites go? 200 years B.C., during the Roman Republic, Rome was already importing tin from Cornwall in England. Julius Caesar sailed to and fought campaigns in England. It isn’t difficult to believe that people in this dark age might have sailed to Ireland. Irish legend says that the prophet Jeremiah sailed to Ireland with Princess Tea Tephi, a member of the Israelite royal family. As evidence they present the national symbol, a harp, which is also associated with King David.

There is comment here on Biblical history and on legend. Nothing is said about Mormon theology or the Mormon assassins known as Danites who punished apostasy with throat slitting, an act of love as this was the only way the apostates sin could be forgiven. These were men like Brigham Young’s adoptive son, Porter Rockwell, whose real record of murder put the legendary exploits Clay Allison and Billy the Kid and even John Wesley Hardin to shame.

Once again, my family joins a religious organization, only to gain land, to defend sacred ground. Which was purchased long ago,by Viking Lords, from indigenous peoples on the Land and we all have full rights, to the new world. Planting the seeds of Freedom for all who wish to be free, placed in our Constitution. Created by the Greatest Architect to whom I bow.

And I bow to no Man. As I'm am Worrier, among Worrier's both living and Dead, in the Greatest Army ever created, dating back 12,000 years.

Now we live free to worship or live as we please and have our own rights to be free from tyranny and oppression.

kv

My Father has alway's told me, you must be very careful of what you say and do, your Ancestors are watching you at all times, and you are never alone, no matter what, never fear, they are with you to the end, carried by the very blood in your veins.

 

...
If you read that publication, you will find a lot of things listed as income ... including bribes and bartering ... where you do a job for a friend and they do a job for you. Both are considered to have "received" a service worth some dollar value.
...

Tax is paid on profit. If some individual "barter" etc is of fair exchange there is no profit (like the two people mowing each other's lawns). There should be no tax implication.

But, if one of those people had a business mowing lawns, and they mowed a lawn and got paid in lamb chops, then that is income (but the income is obviously in a non-cash form).

 

Tax is paid on profit. If some individual "barter" etc is of fair exchange there is no profit (like the two people mowing each other's lawns). There should be no tax implication.

Ahh, but the problem is that, as an individual, paying someone to mow my lawn is not a deductible expense, while getting paid to mow someone else's lawn is taxable income. So, by law (well, by IRS regulation masquerading as law), both parties have taxable income that is not offset by an allowable expense. Now, if I'm a business, then paying someone to mow the lawn owned by the business IS an allowable expense and, in that case, there would be no direct tax implication. There are, however, lots of rules that are based on revenue and other lines in the tax return other than the final taxable income and those lines are, technically, supposed to reflect the additional income for non-cash transactions even if other lines reflect offsetting non-cash expenses.

 

Only if I Farmed and raised the Lamb.

I bought the lawn mower,charged Tax at the point of sale, as well as the Gas to go in it. My lamb chops are paid and purchased at the store, tax charge at the point of sale. In exchange for my Labor. If I forfeit my labor and donate that to my neighbor and he in turn donates the lamb for which I have no money.

The 2 become a right off.

Edit: If I do it on a regular bases, I become a Humanitarian.

Edit: Edit: If do it on a regular bases, and add a little money to the deal I am a Philanthropist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy

Especially, if I can talk someone into paying for my time in donations, who are looking for a right off in my Charity. Rich people do it everyday of the week, including our Bureaucrats, reducing their Tax Liability remaining rich and powerful. They Shuffle money around like the ball under the cup, by a street side Magician.

Now you see it, Now you don't, Now you see it. Now you Look and there is no ball? Under any cup?

 

And pretty much every point you made is irrelevant.

A landscaping company that buys a lawnmower pays sales tax at the point of purchase just like an individual does. That's irrelevant because neither of you are selling a lawnmower!

When you sell a car, you are supposed to claim the sale price as misc income. But you don't get to expense the car when you bought it or claim depreciation on it. I always thought that was ridiculous and particularly naive because no one (well, virtually no one) is going to claim the income.

The military has a long standing tradition in this regard: Never give an order that you KNOW will not be obeyed! As soon as you start doing that, you quickly establish the precent that your orders don't need to be obeyed. Given the feel-good laws that are passed right and left (or perhaps that should be Right and Left) that are never intended to actually be enforced, imagine how many fewer laws there would be on the books if there was a rock solid dictum that any law that is passed is expected to be obeyed and that it won't be passed unless there is both the ability and the will to enforce it. The mere rigorous enforcement of assinine laws would rapidly lead to their repeal.

 

No, it is not irrelevant.

In the back woods of society it happens all the time.

2nd to deny that this doesn't happen, with the very rich and powerful, is turning the blind eye.

Debt, falls onto every individual in the slave majority which is the Middle class and has alway's been so to the very bottom.

Tax, is the culprit here and in any country, for century's.

Good Day. But, I still enjoy your posts.

My deepest, respect.

kv

 

No, it is not irrelevant.

In the back woods of society it happens all the time.

2nd to deny that this doesn't happen, with the very rich and powerful, is turning the blind eye.

Debt, falls onto every individual in the slave majority which is the Middle class and has alway's been so to the very bottom.

Tax, is the culprit here and in any country, for century's.

Good Day. But, I still enjoy your posts.

My deepest, respect.

kv

At what point did I deny, in any way shape or form, that it happens. That was not the discussion -- the discussion is about what is LEGAL, not what is DONE!

And I say again, almost everything you said is irrelevant to the question of whether it is legal, which is what this discussion is about. It doesn't matter what argument is used to justify illegal behavior, that doesn't change that fact that it is illegal. And note that there is, and always has been, a distinction between what is legal, what is moral, and what is right. It's nice when all three align reasonably well, but they often do not. But the discussion here has nothing to do with what is moral or what is right or what is done, but only on what is legal.

 

At what point did I deny, in any way shape or form, that it happens. That was not the discussion -- the discussion is about what is LEGAL, not what is DONE!

And I say again, almost everything you said is irrelevant to the question of whether it is legal, which is what this discussion is about. It doesn't matter what argument is used to justify illegal behavior, that doesn't change that fact that it is illegal. And note that there is, and always has been, a distinction between what is legal, what is moral, and what is right. It's nice when all three align reasonably well, but they often do not. But the discussion here has nothing to do with what is moral or what is right or what is done, but only on what is legal.

To that I will concede, I hope all the best to you and your family.

You are a rare gift to humanity.

kv