Economics Of The Election

[sys]

https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1323931506390167552

[chum1]

 

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1324024261447720962

[MakeItRain]

Better get that done before his buddy Nancy gets replaced by Sheila Jackson Lee or Debbie Dingell.

[Rage Against the McKee]

He probably should have got that done before Trump lost his election. Good luck getting his fat ass to sign anything now.

[steve dave]

Biden already making waves

https://twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/1324706313369255937

[Rage Against the McKee]

Good job, president Biden!

[steve dave]

Rock Hard

https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1325856023563919360


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve dave]

Well, for starters, she’s a crazy person


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve dave]

https://twitter.com/ct_bergstrom/status/1329724739305148417


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MakeItRain]

This have to do with the Tyson lawsuit? Keep hearing this concern, over shielding companies from lawsuits, but I haven't seen a more detailed explanation.

Ernst told reporter she would be willing to accept some form of aid for state and local governments, albeit with guardrails to ensure funding is target for covid-related needs. She also expressed concern about language in the measure related to insulating firms and other entities from covid-related lawsuits.

The Washington Post: Momentum builds for bipartisan $908 billion stimulus package as more GOP senators express support.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/03/congress-economic-stimulus-coronavirus/

If it is related tip the Tyson lawsuit, it's too late as that's been filed. They also have bigger problems than this lawsuit as it seems that amongst the other bullshit those ghouls did at Tyson Waterloo, they lied to federal inspectors.

[MadCat]

ONE GIANT LOOPHOLE IN COVID BILL? — Brookings’ senior fellow Adam Looney: “Congress is on the verge of giving a $120 billion windfall to the top 1 percent in its pending COVID relief bill. It shouldn’t do that. Tucked into the bill is a provision to allow businesses to deduct expenses that were paid for by the government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

“Normally, a business owner may deduct only expenses they actually paid for. … Passing legislation to allow businesses to pay their expenses with taxpayer-provided PPP funds and then to deduct those expenses against their own taxes would be a windfall to high-income business owners—a windfall that would exceed the amounts that Congress is considering in unemployment insurance, rental assistance, food aid, or healthcare.”

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/12/17/dont-celebrate-the-covid-deal-too-much-792374

Joel Osteen wins again

[steve dave]

ONE GIANT LOOPHOLE IN COVID BILL? — Brookings’ senior fellow Adam Looney: “Congress is on the verge of giving a $120 billion windfall to the top 1 percent in its pending COVID relief bill. It shouldn’t do that. Tucked into the bill is a provision to allow businesses to deduct expenses that were paid for by the government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

“Normally, a business owner may deduct only expenses they actually paid for. … Passing legislation to allow businesses to pay their expenses with taxpayer-provided PPP funds and then to deduct those expenses against their own taxes would be a windfall to high-income business owners—a windfall that would exceed the amounts that Congress is considering in unemployment insurance, rental assistance, food aid, or healthcare.”

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/12/17/dont-celebrate-the-covid-deal-too-much-792374

Joel Osteen wins again

lmao, church's don't pay taxes. imagine what we could do with that tax money if we would just make them.

[Dugout DickStone]

ONE GIANT LOOPHOLE IN COVID BILL? — Brookings’ senior fellow Adam Looney: “Congress is on the verge of giving a $120 billion windfall to the top 1 percent in its pending COVID relief bill. It shouldn’t do that. Tucked into the bill is a provision to allow businesses to deduct expenses that were paid for by the government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

“Normally, a business owner may deduct only expenses they actually paid for. … Passing legislation to allow businesses to pay their expenses with taxpayer-provided PPP funds and then to deduct those expenses against their own taxes would be a windfall to high-income business owners—a windfall that would exceed the amounts that Congress is considering in unemployment insurance, rental assistance, food aid, or healthcare.”

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/12/17/dont-celebrate-the-covid-deal-too-much-792374

 

[hjfklmor]

ONE GIANT LOOPHOLE IN COVID BILL? — Brookings’ senior fellow Adam Looney: “Congress is on the verge of giving a $120 billion windfall to the top 1 percent in its pending COVID relief bill. It shouldn’t do that. Tucked into the bill is a provision to allow businesses to deduct expenses that were paid for by the government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

“Normally, a business owner may deduct only expenses they actually paid for. … Passing legislation to allow businesses to pay their expenses with taxpayer-provided PPP funds and then to deduct those expenses against their own taxes would be a windfall to high-income business owners—a windfall that would exceed the amounts that Congress is considering in unemployment insurance, rental assistance, food aid, or healthcare.”

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/12/17/dont-celebrate-the-covid-deal-too-much-792374

This isn't a loophole.. If Congress intended for the PPP loans to be forgiven tax-free, you need to be able to deduct these expenses. Whether that forgiveness should be tax-free is another matter but this is just matching the intent within the CARES Act.

[hjfklmor]

The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.

If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.

They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.

[steve dave]

and hjfklmor explodes into my awareness as possibly being my mom

[steve dave]

very good additions here hjfklmor. we need more experts in irl stuff on this blog.

[hjfklmor]

and hjfklmor explodes into my awareness as possibly being my mom

Well if your mother is a CPA then mods please change my name to mom of steve dave.

[star seed 7]

I can see hjfklmor becoming the Andy Dufresne of this here shawshank prison

[Kat Kid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/17/trump-2000-stimulus-checks/

White House aides intervened Thursday to prevent President Trump from issuing a statement calling for substantially larger stimulus payments for millions of Americans, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details of the private exchange.

On a phone call Thursday afternoon, Trump told allies that he believes stimulus payments in the next relief package should be “at least” $1,200 per person and possibly as big as $2,000 per person, the officials said. Congressional leadership is preparing a stimulus package that would provide checks of $600 per person.

Really incredible incompetent leadership from the dems that they could not appeal to Trump wanting to "go big" on stimulus to leverage him to approve a bigger bill earlier.  Pelosi really went all in on not only winning the Senate, but having 52+.  The problem with her thinking was that if the dems truly had all 3 branches and 52+ then they could've always done more stimulus later.

Just awful leadership.

[Kat Kid]

Mark Meadows was undoubtedly a huge impediment, but the dems could've done a deal with 2x the price tag with more of everything they wanted.  Why didn't they?  Nancy and to a much lesser extent Chuck.

[Justwin]

The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.

If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.

They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.

Is there anything clear on how PPP loan distributions to partners in a partnership should be treated and be reported on a partner's K-1?

[steve dave]

and hjfklmor explodes into my awareness as possibly being my mom

Well if your mother is a CPA then mods please change my name to mom of steve dave.

Hell yeah!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hjfklmor]

Interesting, so how are the loans being treated right now then, is it baked into the Revenue Rulings?

Are they deductible to decrease tax burden for employers and without discretion on the personal income of the owner/employer and some party is telling the IRS to kick rocks?

Technically speaking very few people have filed a tax return with PPP forgiveness on it. Several trade groups are telling the IRS to kick rocks and it would appear that Congress is as well.

[hjfklmor]

The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.

If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.

They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.

Is there anything clear on how PPP loan distributions to partners in a partnership should be treated and be reported on a partner's K-1?

You got a PPP loan and distributed the funds to yourself instead of paying rent, payroll, etc.? That is beyond the scope of this here blog.