|
Posted by Stuart Bronstein on November 1, 2007, 10:10 pm
Please log in for more thread options Dick Adams wrote:
> My position will remain that this is a contingent rebate
> - at least until the final appellate decision says different.
And they pry your return from your cold, dead hand? Are you
sure you don't work for the IRS?
> The concepualization problem may be because this is a 100%
> rebate and is may be viewed as a refund. What if it was a
> 25% rebate? or a 50% rebate? It's still a rebate.
>
> When did rebates become taxable income?
It could be argued that if the rebate lowers the price below
a reasonable amount (e.g. in relationship to the retailer's
cost) it could lose its character as a rebate and become
gambling income.
Stu
Moderator:
LOL - Excusez-moi! I'm the one taking the pro-taxpayer
position. But let us wait for the 1099's!
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap