A couple months ago, I posted about the problems with taxing bitcoins. In short, we didn’t know if bitcoins were currency or property. Largely, of course, the difference is immaterial: receipt of currency or property constitutes the receipt of taxable income, and using property or foreign currency to acquire goods or services constitutes a taxable realization event.[fn1] The most significant difference is that if bitcoins were property, any gain or loss could be capital, whereas if they were a currency, that gain or loss would essentially always be ordinary.
Like any American who has ever been to a dance or listened to the radio, I’ve heard ABBA’s “Dancing Queen.”[fn1] But in the last week or so, I’ve learned a couple new things about them. A week ago, listening to Sound Opinions’s Valentine’s Day episode, I learned that the band was made up of two married couples.[fn2] And yesterday, thanks to several friends on Facebook, I learned that (a) ABBA used to dress outrageously, and (b) it was apparently for tax reasons. Continue reading
Man, New Jersey apparently must hate Peyton Manning. It’s threatening to tax his Super Bowl earnings at a rate of 51.08% if he wins. Or 101.83% if he loses. Seriously, 101.83%. And that’s just his New Jersey taxes; he’ll also owe federal income tax.
Or so says K. Sean Packard over at Forbes. In a widely circulated blog post,[fn1] Packard explains the tax trap that Manning will fall into by virtue of being the quarterback of one of the two teams playing in the Super Bowl this year. Continue reading
Over at Slate, Matt Yglesias mentions that, in addition to the existential questions surrounding bitcoin, there are a handful of practical questions that need to be worked out. Specifically, he wants to know if bitcoin transactions should be taxed and, if so, how they should be taxed. Continue reading
Well, another week without any significant movement tax-wise.[fn] The closest we came: an old friend with the government came to look at the various manors in Yorkshire, many of which are apparently in bad shape, to evaluate the effect of the war.
So I suspect that next week it’ll get back to what we care about. Until then, well, oh well.
There is, of course, some movement on the tax plot: Continue reading
On Tuesday, I wrote about the tax consequences to married same-sex couples of Utah’s decision not to recognize its same-sex marriages for the duration of the stay. The quick version is, that decision, combined with the federal government’s decision to recognize such marriages, was going to force Utah’s same-sex married couples to prepare dummy returns, substantially increasing the expense of filing their tax returns. Continue reading