EBay Sellers Try To Get Moral Support For Income Tax Evasion
from the one-of-two-things-in-life-we-can-be-certain-of dept
It's almost April, which means that we're in the thick of the tax season. For the eBay power sellers who make a living at buying and reselling goods on eBay, they clearly need to pay income tax on their profits. But what about the millions of smaller scale eBay'ers that supplementing their income by selling their used goods online? Is that income taxable? Each year, as we near tax season, there is increasing confusion over whether or not to report eBay profits as income. The tax code seems pretty straightforward -- any income, even from a hobby, is taxable. Income = Sale Price - Cost of Goods Sold. The accountant quoted points out that the tax code is vague when distinguishing a hobby from a business, which is true. However, this distinction should only be used when deducting hobby expenses from the hobby income. Honestly, if there are truly people who consider selling things on eBay a "hobby", I have a whole attic full of crap that I'll happily sell to you for exactly what you get for it on eBay (and I'll happily pay the income tax on that). Sounds like people are (as usual) trying to get out of paying taxes, which is why we have auditors. It's a recognized imperfect system, designed to only catch those who grossly try and cheat the system. Income tax evasion is nothing new, and for those millions of people that don't report their eBay income, it's doubtful that the IRS will audit every one of them (nor will they catch all the people that don't report their online state sales taxes). As with income tax evaders in all arenas, it's likely the IRS will chase the big whales worth the chase. Sold a few pairs of grandma's old shoes? You're probably ok. Sold a grilled cheese sandwich for $28,000? I'd recommend you report that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And the reverse?
If not, then why should I be expected to pay taxes on items that I did sell for more than I originally paid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do we really need an income tax?
It should be noted that even the most despotic of the French kings never dreamed of accounting for every centime that every Frenchman made during the course of a year.
Today, most people don't dare start a small buisness, because the government takes half of everything you make. It's not economically worthwhile to work harder and work for yourself.
This country got by just fine for well over a hundred years without an income tax. The one enacted in 1913 only taxed 1% of the income of people who made more than $20,000... but it was a step down a slippery slope, because it allowed the Federal government to grow larger.... which required more taxes to feed it... which made it larger... and there's nothing to keep it in check, because the government *can't go out of buisness*.
For all of the trouble that it causes, the income tax still only accounts for 1/6th of the federal budget. Why not eliminate the tax, and cut away some of the useless cruft in the federal budget instead?
"Congress can raise taxes because it can persuade a sizable fraction of the populace that somebody else will pay" - Milton Friedman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the reverse?
Life is a like a hobby, only less so. You pay taxes on virtually all income, and you get to deduct only certain expenses (e.g., 2% thresholds on miscellaneous deductions, 7.5% thresholds on medical expenses, no deduction for consumer interest).
The comment below is partly correct. In many cases, the amount of net income from sales of personal property will be zero. If, however, you have a sale of something that has appreciated (think collectibles here - such as my Star Wars figures that cost $4 each) and sell it, the net income is taxable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if we could get the enron's to pay their share
awesome to be rich...
sure i think some of the larger stores on ebay should pay their fair share in taxes.. but need to leave alone the people basically having online yard sale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the reverse?
I seriously doubt that the IRS is coming after too many people on ebay. The time and expense for the amounts involved (don't forget they only get a fraction of the net income) just isn't worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the reverse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sale of used goods appears not to be taxable
income = sale price - cost of goods sold
then I can't see how these used items are taxable. IF I buy a TV for $1000 and sell it 3 years later for $400 then income is -$600 ... not a profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sale of used goods appears not to be taxable
say you bought a dress for $1000 and sell it for $400 you have a loss and the doesnt need to be taxed.
Just trying to help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about selling your own organs?
http://news.livedoor.com/webapp/journal/cid__1056051/detail
So many grievances, so few fingers to count them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxable
It's stupid. I don't do it, grandma does not do it, your mom probably does not do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the taxes have ALREADY been PAID!
Of course if someone is in the BUSINESS of buying and selling on ebay, WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT OTHER INCOME, I could see this scenario being different. (Think about some, though not all, of the PowerSellers here ...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it not fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it still not fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"recognized imperfect system" is right!
If a retailer responsible for adding sales tax is supposed to calculate that sales tax, not to the unit price they paid for the item ($5, for example), but to the price they sell it to the customer for (say $7), isn't that tax amount technically paying taxes on the profit of the item ($2) already? ...So why does the government turn around and charge taxes on the profit of that item AGAIN, only under the category of 'income tax' the second time around? Didn't the income (i.e., profit) tax already get paid, albeit by the customer instead of the retailer? That whole setup just seems like a way to allow for double taxation on a rather poorly hidden technicality. Shouldn't the sales tax be calculated from the original unit price rather than the selling price? ...Maybe I'm missing something here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]