The federal govenment has to make their money somehow. If the federal government didn't impose taxes on the citizens there would be no federal government and we, the citizens of the United States would be nothing but "Tribes" living under a dictator leader of the "Tribe". Lots of little wars going on between the "Tribes" and everyone would be "Armed" and "Dangerous".

Now, if the federal government got its money from profits they would have to own businesses and us "U.S." citizens would be living under a "COMMUNIST" government just like Russia, China, North Korea. We would all be eating beans, beans, beans and rice! Sometimes when bread was available we would get a loaf. Get used to soy products and fish.

The taxation method of funding the federal and state governments may be flawed but that's only because the "IDIOTS" that get elected into office have self serving interests. The democratic party at this time is filled with these people right now with self serving interests. The Republicans can't get away from Ronald Regans "Trickle down economics" that never worked and they are "Big Idiots" for trying new ways to make it work like letting all the illegals stay in the country for cheap labor purposes and letting the stream of cheap labor keep flowing into the United States. It's all trickle down economics giving employers more money thinking they will put more money into American citizens pockets and re-invest creating more jobs. "DOESN'T WORK"!

The taxation system is all we have and we will have to live with it. It's the American citizens fault for voting in these people like Bill Clinton and both the Bushes. It's the American citizens fault for voting into congress people like Ted Kennedy, Nancy Polosi, Barabara Boxer, Diana Finstein, Harry Reid, John McCain, Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of this little "Click" that controls the law making process at this time. These people have brought this country to "Shame".

Lots of good House and Senate members that have kept us from getting worst than we are right now. They just aren't the congressional leaders controlling what bills go to vote and what bills get rejected.

"If the federal government didn't impose taxes on the citizens there would be no federal government..."

That's totally incorrect. A properly constituted and legally run government can raise more than enough revenue through legally authorized taxation, i.e., interstate commerce (among many others), to operate both efficiently and constitutionally.

What I said "Is Correct". The federal government funds alot of state and city run programs such as roads, state and city services, school programs, land management etc., etc., etc................

Without the money coming into the states and cities from the federal government our cities and counties would all look and be "Getto's" and city law enforcement would only have "Pop Guns" to fight criminal activites. It's the Federal governments money that buys law enforcements up to date crime fighting equipment and keeps public schools supplied with the items the teachers need to teach with. Even with the federal governments money the public schools in alot of areas are just scraping by!

You can take it that with the taxation upon commerce could keep the federal government "itself" up and running but it would not supply the states and cities with the funds they would need to stay up and running properly so you could enjoy all the crime free neighborhoods and services you enjoy at this time.

Without out employment taxes on the citizens we wouldn't have the army necessary to defend this country, special programs funded by the federal government to encourage social correctness would disappear (mentally disabled, prison rehab, getto community centers, parks and recreation areas, farm subsidies, emergency disaster funding, medicare, scientific researches, etc.). All these programs would be gone and this country would be a third world nation full of corruption, drugs, mentally distrubed people running loose on the streets, etc........................

The Federal money collected from "ALL" taxes funds all these programs plus alot more not mentioned so you can live in a society that's clean and voice your opinion about how the government doesn't need the money it's getting.

You my friend are the one that's "Incorrect"! The government does need the tax money, they just need to quit adding new taxes and learn how to spend the tax money they are getting much more wisely and efficiently and cut out the pork and ear marks like building a highway to connect islands in Alaska where very, very few people go. They need to quit funding million dollar research projects on the way a "Grasshopper" hops . Stupid projects like this and letting congressmen and women with special business interests create federally funded projects that would encourage a boosted profit margin in their businesses needs to stop. Elected officials that that own alot of stock in large companies and are persueded easily by the companies they own stock in need to be looked at more carefully when they make decisions and cast their votes.

If anyone is mistaken it's not me!

"From what I read in the article this law just collects data on the amount of "sales" or "internet" transactions and does "not" collect personal data such as "names" "SSI numbers".

Incorrect. The bill calls for the collection of data and reporting to both the IRS and the individual or entity it is collected on; i.e., the individual merchant. This would be similar to the current requirements that mandates investment institutions to collect and report data, per individual (according to SS # or Tax ID#), of gross proceeds from sales of investments to the individual and IRS. This proposal would just institute similar regulations where proceeds from sales for commodities (retail and wholesale) for the proceeds derived from investments vehicles. The individual is held responsible by the IRS to report such gross proceeds and any adjustments applicable; i.e., offsetting expenses in acquiring and selling the investments such as, but not limited to, costs of purchase, retention, purchase and sales costs.

"...proposed legislation (H.R. 3221) that would require electronic payment systems to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee."

The IRS considers the internet to be a prime example of an "underground" economy shielding earnings from view of the IRS and, therefore, a source of earnings and income not being included for taxation. This bill is one of many steps the IRS and Congress have implemented, or will implement to uncover and tax such internet revenue.

"...the government cannot tax the sale of a used item being sold by someone who made the original purchase from a "B&M" store."

They can and do tax used items if a profit is made overall by the seller. The IRS will tax any profit generated from exchange of goods, services and/or merchandise. If, in example, an individual purchases a widget for $50.00, including state and local taxes and turns around and sells it a year later for $100.00, the IRS considers that a taxable transaction if they know of it - hence, the $50.00 profit is consider taxable income. If, however, you sell that widget a year later for $40.00 (no state tax is due if resale of personal items) you cannot deduct the $10.00 "loss" as it is considered fair use benefit of owning the widget. Please note, this only applies to personal items, inventory specifically acquired for resale falls under different rules with different tax implications (i.e., a pawn shop has to pay federal income tax on profits, state income tax on profits -- where applicable -- and state and local sales tax from the sale itself).

Again, keep in mind that I'm only using actual tax law in these examples. How I personally apply them for myself and or clients may be different and you should make a determination for yourself on how to proceed with any tax question as it may apply to you. I just won't sit back and allow what I consider to be inaccurate information to be disbursed randomly that could possibly lead someone into confrontation with a taxing authority -- regardless of the constitutionality of that authority.

Enough said, I am now humbly bowing out of tax questions.

Ocean --

The best tax and spend politicians in the country couldn't have argued stronger for the misappropriation and subsequent misapplication of tax revenue than you. You need to take a well deserved bow.

mongoose wrote (View Post): › Incorrect. The bill calls for the collection of data and reporting to both the IRS and the individual or entity it is collected on; i.e., the individual merchant. This would be similar to the current requirements that mandates investment institutions to collect and report data, per individual (according to SS # or Tax ID#), of gross proceeds from sales of investments to the individual and IRS. This proposal would just institute similar regulations where proceeds from sales for commodities (retail and wholesale) for the proceeds derived from investments vehicles. The individual is held responsible by the IRS to report such gross proceeds and any adjustments applicable; i.e., offsetting expenses in acquiring and selling the investments such as, but not limited to, costs of purchase, retention, purchase and sales costs. The IRS considers the internet to be a prime example of an "underground" economy shielding earnings from view of the IRS and, therefore, a source of earnings and income not being included for taxation. This bill is one of many steps the IRS and Congress have implemented, or will implement to uncover and tax such internet revenue. They can and do tax used items if a profit is made overall by the seller. The IRS will tax any profit generated from exchange of goods, services and/or merchandise. If, in example, an individual purchases a widget for $50.00, including state and local taxes and turns around and sells it a year later for $100.00, the IRS considers that a taxable transaction if they know of it - hence, the $50.00 profit is consider taxable income. If, however, you sell that widget a year later for $40.00 (no state tax is due if resale of personal items) you cannot deduct the $10.00 "loss" as it is considered fair use benefit of owning the widget. Please note, this only applies to personal items, inventory specifically acquired for resale falls under different rules with different tax implications (i.e., a pawn shop has to pay federal income tax on profits, state income tax on profits -- where applicable -- and state and local sales tax from the sale itself).

The government does consider the internet an untapped tax source. No argument there. Before the internet they tried to tax swap meets and was looking into taxing garage sales at one time in the California town I used to live in.

It all failed because as I stated and you just stated the government can't tax items being sold by individuals who purchased said items from a brick and mortar store and are cleaning their garages to get rid of said items at a price less than what they paid.

Of coarse used items can be taxed if someone buys something and sells it for a profit with every intent of selling said item for a profit.

My point was and is, millions of people sell stuff on Ebay, Amazon and other auction sites just to clean out their garages and are only out to get whatever they can get for the items which is usually less then what they originally paid for the items at the brick and mortar store.

The government is having a hard time with this because people selling their stuff just to clean their garages out and getting less than what they paid for the items are mixed in with thousands of retailers buying and selling for profit.

I think if what you said about them collecting personal data including names, SSI numbers, home addresses, personal bank account numbers, occupation etc...... is true on every person that sells something on the internet, then giving it all to the IRS, that would be very hard for me to believe. I'd have to say to you also "Show Me The Proof".

The government trying to collect tax money from retailers selling on the internet I do believe is going to happen! Most of the businesses on the internet are "B & M" stores. Every Brick and Mortar store in the U.S. has to be selling on the internet now to keep there profit margins up. Lots of internet only retail businesses are popping up and they are targets government targets also.

Individuals like me and other mom and pop type sellers on Ebay and the auction sites getting attacked by the IRS for making a modest profit for selling used items. I have a hard time believing that.

I'll look at the script from the Congressional bill your quoted as going after online retailers and not small time profiteers like me. Every politician knows, "Attack Garage Sales" and your political carreer is over!

mongoose wrote (View Post): › Ocean -- The best tax and spend politicians in the country couldn't have argued stronger for the misappropriation and subsequent misapplication of tax revenue than you. You need to take a well deserved bow.

It didn't sound like I was arguing for the misapropriation and misapplication of tax revenue.
I don't think so!

It sounded like I was arguing for sensible spending, better politicians to make spending decisions so no new taxes would have to be imposed on the public.

If you call funding schools, law inforcement and other senseable programs misapropriating funds then you must like the "Tribal" Atmosphere. What about the people that like clean safe streets. No one is suppose to enjoy these things but the chosen few?

There are politicians that mis-spend the tax dollars and they need to be gotten rid of but the government does have to have the tax money they are getting and not impose any new taxes on use or we, the American public, are in deep trouble.

In reference to cleaning out the garage, flea markets and the like...

The problem the IRS has and cannot overcome in many areas such as garage sales and flea markets is that it's a cash business. This bill proposes reporting from a third party financial processor; i.e., PayPal and CC processors where a paper or electronic audit trail is established as a normal course of business. The same holds true for internet generated sales if paid for by check, money order or cash -- there's no ready paper nor electronic trail.

Just as there are reporting thresholds for things such as self employment and hobby income, I'm sure there would be required reporting thresholds, most likely including frequency and total dollar amount before such declarations would have to be reported on tax returns. The IRS would most likely not care about people legitimately cleaning out unused and no longer wanted junk that was originally purchased for personal use.

Even with thresholds designed and implemented, if the garage cleaner exceeded that amount or frequency (again when using a third party payment system) without reporting it, they would probably just get a computerized letter of inquiry from the IRS asking for an explanation. By simply responding with a statement that one was just cleaning out "stuff" laying around the house would most likely suffice.

If, however, a certain as of yet not determined dollar or frequency level were to be exceeded; or, if there was a relatively high and continued frequency repetitively demonstrated, the IRS could ask for more documentation of the activity.

I think there's a lot of concern over nothing for the average seller just cleaning out general junk from the house. What this is aimed for is identifying the running of actual businesses, either full or part time, who are currently flying under the IRS radar. Their interest is in finding the people continually buying and selling to make a profit on the internet.

"It sounded like I was arguing for sensible spending, better politicians to make spending decisions so no new taxes would have to be imposed on the public."

Provide a finite, all inclusive definition of sensible. Define the opposite. Define what constitutes reasonable support of a social project; when does such support become excessive and counterproductive to the overall welfare and betterment of society.

In a nutshell, that's the problem with determining what is proper taxation and expenditure of same. Everyone has their own opinion as to what is and what isn't justified and/or righteous. What Peter may believe to be totally justified and necessary, Paul may think some of it is wasteful and unnecessary while ignoring what is actually righteous and necessary.

How much wealth (not talking rich or poor, just money in general) redistribution is actually necessary to accomplish what is truly needed. And how do you define what is truly needed, let alone to what degree such support is applied?

One man's junk is another's treasure -- one politician's or government agency's spending is wasteful while another's is considered absolutely necessary. And the debate goes on ad infinitum without regard to the actual constitution or case law.

Circular arguments are a waste.

mongoose wrote (View Post): › "It sounded like I was arguing for sensible spending, better politicians to make spending decisions so no new taxes would have to be imposed on the public." Provide a finite, all inclusive definition of sensible. Define the opposite. Define what constitutes reasonable support of a social project; when does such support become excessive and counterproductive to the overall welfare and betterment of society. In a nutshell, that's the problem with determining what is proper taxation and expenditure of same. Everyone has their own opinion as to what is and what isn't justified and/or righteous. What Peter may believe to be totally justified and necessary, Paul may think some of it is wasteful and unnecessary while ignoring what is actually righteous and necessary. How much wealth (not talking rich or poor, just money in general) redistribution is actually necessary to accomplish what is truly needed. And how do you define what is truly needed, let alone to what degree such support is applied? One man's junk is another's treasure -- one politician's or government agency's spending is wasteful while another's is considered absolutely necessary. And the debate goes on ad infinitum without regard to the actual constitution or case law. Circular arguments are a waste.

I don't need to get into all the specifics you stated because even the people with a meger education understand what I said. Going overboard is going overboard.

I will look into this senate bill some more and find out exactly what's what with it. We'll see. I constantly watch the news and this morning reading this thread is the first I've heard about it.

mongoose wrote (View Post): › "To this Mr Mongoose, all I have to say is "SHOW ME THE LAW!" Your rebellion against , or denial of the right of the government to tax wages, earning, etc., is preaching to the choir. I have long been actively involved in showing what a sham the "taxing authority" is in actuality. I've even helped prepare documentation and arguments presented in courts where the defendant prevailed. With that said, I must also tell you that for every individual who has successfully fought the IRS and won, there are literally thousands who have been convicted for tax evasion. There are many groups around, that for either legitimate or frivolous reasons, reject the authority of the IRS and Congress, et al, to collect taxes, regardless of the constitutionality of their premise. If you belong to such a group or are following their advice, be prepared to spend a very large amount of money in defending yourself if you are taken to court for tax fraud and or evasion. I became an Enrolled Agent (tested, vetted and licensed by the IRS to appear before them, including Tax Court, to represent others in tax matters) while learning to fight the system that I believe is basically illegal. And fight the system I do -- but with the knowledge that at any time the IRS can and will prosecute for violating "their laws." You can challenge me all you want about the legality of the tax system; you can challenge the IRS the same way -- but, you have to be able to defend yourself if you are challenged in your beliefs. Here are a few excerpts of my published works used either in public commentary or actual court cases. As you can see, I'm essentially on your side -- but I continue to file taxes until I know that I can prevail in any action brought against me for not doing so. "The Constitution prohibits any direct tax, unless in proportion to numbers as ascertained by the census..... [and] ... prohibits Congress from laying a direct tax on the revenue from property of the citizen without regard to state lines...- United States Supreme Court in Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company (1895) "... [the 16th Amendment] conferred no new power of taxation... [and]... prohibited the ... power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged...".-United States Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining (1916) If the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, how then does the IRS get away with using it as the "income tax amendment" to crucify and destroy Americans - especially in light of the incontrovertible fact that it was NEVER legally ratified by the required number of states? I can even provide you with legal citations of the cases I've been involved with where the plaintiff (non tax paying citizen) has prevailed against the IRS. However, the ratio of plaintiffs unsuccessful to those successful runs in excess of 10,000:1. While I admire your defiance, the more the better (can you imagine what would happen to the "voluntary" tax system in this country if 10% of the citizens refused to file?), I urge you use caution and common sense in exercising it.

While I whole heartidly support this issue, I am also no a$$. And since what little income I do have after being raped by our government, is vital to me to barely survive, I have little, actually none, to defend myself in such a case. Yes, I still pay my taxes, begrundingly, but will continue to support and ask for someone, anyone to PROVE that what the IRS is doing is legal. I just don't understand how an entity can get away with something such as this in our country, which BTW, we "call" a democracy, but even our pledge of allegiance says "REPUBLIC", not democracy.

Juli --

Join the club: "...anyone to PROVE that what the IRS is doing is legal."

There are legal precedent setting cases where the IRS has been beaten. However, the Tax Court findings (and yes, ALL fed tax cases are heard in Tax Court, another branch of the IRS conglomerate) that they are almost impossible to use in another trial.

Unfortunately, the tax structure in this country is in lock step with political ambition and power. When that ambition and power structure needs more money they find new ways to draw money from the public. Very few politicians will take a stand at reigning in the implied power and authority of the IRS, nor spend an honest effort to reform our tax structure.

There have been many outcries to reform the tax policy to a more simplified, reasonable and equitable system. However, one of the major tools for both implementing social priorities and currying favor from large special interest groups is through manipulation of tax policy and collection.

Bottom line, so long as we keep electing the same type of politicians, we will have an inequitable, excessive and manipulative system. And we will probably continue to elect the same type of politician as we as a society have become accustomed to government providing care and services from cradle to grave.

As a PS, keep in mind all the authority given to the IRS is either directly or indirectly from the Congress. They even approve the rules and regulations as to application for use by the IRS.

LurkeyLou wrote (View Post): › FreedomWorks June 19, 2008 [size=18] From the Senate Bill Summary: Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.

I knew I should have researched this Bull_hit before I entered the thread.

I hate to tell you "Mongoose" but you were mislead by a "BIG PILE OF BULL_HIT"!

The passsage quoted above by Lurkylou is part of a "House of Representatives" bill stopping the foreclosure of "HOUSES"!

The passage Lurkeylou gave has nothing to do with "TAXING INTERNET SELLERS" or "E-COMMERCE" business! It is part of a recent "House" bill to stop all the foreclosures going on around the country right now due to the "Countrywide Morgage" mess.

Even though all the things you said are true about the government being able to tax anyone who makes a profit off the resale of goods it is not happening at this time on the internet.

I am still researching this taxation thing but the only thing I have found was a "Senate Bill" passed in 1997 and signed by the president stopping any taxation of internet services including email, home page, internet provider services and
"E-Commerce" until 2014. I still have some checking to do because most of what I found pertains to taxing people who sign on with an ISP. All the passage I read said no tax on "E-Commerce" until 2014. This is quite vague so off I go to do some research.

Common sense tells me if the government were going to tax internet transactions they would have already done so years ago.

Juliartz, don't worry about it at this time. The passage Lurkeylou pasted "IS" from the morgage crisis going on in the country right now due to the Countrywide scandal and has nothing to do with taxing sales on the internet.

There is no proof this taxation thing is going to happen until at least the year 2014.

"I hate to tell you "Mongoose" but you were mislead..."

"...The passage Lurkeylou pasted "IS" from the morgage crisis going on in the country right now due to the Countrywide scandal and has nothing to do with taxing sales"

Wrong on both counts, Ocean. Not to burst your bubble, but part of the uproar is that the Senator (Dodd) inserted the provision as an amendment to it after the House legislation. In case you are unaware of it, this is a typical way to sneak unfavorable legislation though; by attaching it to unrelated but important legislation that will most likely be approved. While the primary intent of the bill is housing and Foreclosure relief, it carries a "poisonous pill" pertaining to all third party transaction processors (not just internet) rider as an amendment. So if the Housing bill is passed, so does this section.

So in the future, when reviewing proposed legislation, be sure to check all documents and submissions pertinent to such legislation before providing your admonishments to others (in this case, approximately 646 pages - a "surprise" can be located anywhere in the legalese).

The amendment submitted to attach to this bill, appropriately entitled by section as Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting is, to wit:
No. 62 June 18, 2008
House Amendments to the Senate Amendment to
H.R. 3221 – Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008
On May 13, 2008, the Senate received from the House 3 amendments to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 3221.
Noteworthy: Other Provisions (pages 11 & 12 of aforementioned amendment submittal)

Revenue Provisions
Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years. (emphasis added)

To help you in your research, here's the url to the government documentation. (again, pertinent paragraph on pages 11 & 12)
http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L62HR3221Houseamendments0618SN.pdf

Please note that while this is not a proposed internet tax or tax system, it will effect all transactions where a third party processor is involved, whether it be at your local gas station or a transaction consummated over the internet. Except for the two exceptions noted for some processors, all transactions will be aggregated and reported. They are looking for ways to fund this legislation. Aggregate reporting of third party processors for revenue produced will insure such revenue is being accounted for on tax returns, and the appropriate income tax from profits derived from such transactions are being effectively being realized. It's not an "internet sales tax."

Most importantly, please remember that this is proposed legislation not voted on and passed, nor signed into law at this time. It's PROPOSED.

mongoose wrote (View Post): › "I hate to tell you "Mongoose" but you were mislead..." "...The passage Lurkeylou pasted "IS" from the morgage crisis going on in the country right now due to the Countrywide scandal and has nothing to do with taxing sales" Wrong on both counts, Ocean. Not to burst your bubble, but part of the uproar is that the Senator (Dodd) inserted the provision as an amendment to it after the House legislation. In case you are unaware of it, this is a typical way to sneak unfavorable legislation though; by attaching it to unrelated but important legislation that will most likely be approved. While the primary intent of the bill is housing and Foreclosure relief, it carries a "poisonous pill" pertaining to all third party transaction processors (not just internet) rider as an amendment. So if the Housing bill is passed, so does this section. So in the future, when reviewing proposed legislation, be sure to check all documents and submissions pertinent to such legislation before providing your admonishments to others (in this case, approximately 646 pages - a "surprise" can be located anywhere in the legalese). The amendment submitted to attach to this bill, appropriately entitled by section as Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting is, to wit: No. 62 June 18, 2008 House Amendments to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3221 – Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 On May 13, 2008, the Senate received from the House 3 amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221. Noteworthy: Other Provisions (pages 11 & 12 of aforementioned amendment submittal) Revenue Provisions Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years. (emphasis added) To help you in your research, here's the url to the government documentation. (again, pertinent paragraph on pages 11 & 12) http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L62HR3221Houseamendments0618SN.pdf Please note that while this is not a proposed internet tax or tax system, it will effect all transactions where a third party processor is involved, whether it be at your local gas station or a transaction consummated over the internet. Except for the two exceptions noted for some processors, all transactions will be aggregated and reported. Most importantly, please remember that this is proposed legislation not voted on and passed, nor signed into law at this time. It's PROPOSED.

The only thing you are showing me "again" is the same passage I read in the "Real Estate" bill posted by Lurkeylou. It deals with real estate transactions only. Until you show me something that states it deals will all transactions not associated with real estate I can't go along with what you are stating.

I don't have the time right now to go fetch the passage concerning "ECommerce" but will tomorrow.

I stayed in the middle on this up until now. Now I have to ask you also:

"SHOW ME THE PROOF"!

Until you show me a bill with a passage in it pertaining to the taxation of internet sales and all the other stuff you are saying about information being sent to the IRS I have to rebutt your statements as false. Senators do slip things in and I am very aware of this but when they do, they have to make the statement "CLEAR CUT" and understandable to the point. You are showing me real estate stuff and that has nothing to do with retail sales to the public and there is nothing clearly mentioned about this real estate thing also involving retail sales.

Actually, there is absolutly nothing said about taxation at all. It just says payments have to be done a certain way when dealing with real estate.

IT'S ALL REAL ESTATE, SHOW ME THE PROOF. I will do some research tomorrow to see if I can find any true about what you are stating. I do give people the benefit of the doubt but from what I read in the other "Bill" I found was a moritorium on the taxation of internet sales until the year 2014 and your aren't and can't show me anything clear cut that says a passage in a real estate deal is going to overide another senate bill signed by the president. If they were talking about third party credit card transactions the word "CREDIT CARD" would be stated clearly instead of just the word card.

Keep working on it, everyone's reading this.

EVERYTHING YOU ARE STATING IS VAGUE WITH NO DIRECT PROOF OR FACTS