Around 11am et, the Senate will begin a complicated series of votes on the small business bill. First an amendment from Mike Johanns (R-NE), then from Bill Nelson (D-FL), then a substitute amendment on the whole bill from Max Baucus will get cloture votes. If the Johanns amendment clears cloture, there will be 30 hours of debate and a vote. If it fails to clear cloture, they move to the Nelson amendment. If that clears cloture, there will be 30 hours of debate and a vote. If it fails, they move to the Baucus substitute amendment. The working assumption is that the small business bill (and thus the Baucus substitute) will pass, but first they have to work through these amendments.
What’s their deal? They actually have to do with some reporting requirements passed in the Affordable Care Act. As a pay-for in the bill, the ACA mandated 1099 reporting for all businesses on certain transactions over $600. The idea here is that companies routinely don’t report such purchases, and summarily don’t pay taxes on them. So basically, the amendment from Johanns eliminates this requirement, and allows businesses to freely evade taxes again. The Nelson amendment would exempt small businesses with less than 25 workers from the requirement, and raise the threshold on transactions to $5,000.
Whatever you think about the burdensome nature of the paperwork, what Johanns and Nelson want is, in fact, legalized tax evasion under the law. We know this because the Congressional Budget Office has attached a cost to their amendments, mindful that failing to mandate reporting will lead to a failure to pay the IRS. The Johanns amendment, for example would cost $17.1 billion over 10 years; the Nelson amendment, somewhat less. How do both amendments pay for themselves? The Nelson amendment taxes the oil and gas industry; the Johanns amendment virtually eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund set up through the ACA.
The Prevention and Public Health Fund, established as part of health reform, is a 10-year $15 billion commitment to wellness. Instead of just treating illness, the fund invests in proven strategies that prevent people from getting sick in the first place — and that save money down the line. It would provide much needed funding to support community-based tobacco cessation and prevention programs, initiatives to reduce diabetes and heart disease, breast and colon cancer screenings, and adult vaccine programs.
Additionally, community prevention efforts support smart communities where people can walk to work, access public transportation safely and easily, and buy fresh fruits and vegetables right in their neighborhood [...]
And the motives behind the amendment may be less altruistic for small business than they seem. Sen. Johanns has previously stated that repealing health reform is on his agenda, even if it has to happen piece by piece. In addition to eliminating crucial prevention dollars, his amendment starts the dismantling of health reform, by reducing the number of Americans who will be covered by health insurance and increasing the cost of premiums for those who are insured. Small businesses stand to gain as much as $40 billion in tax credits through the existing health reform law, and see lower premium costs to boot.
The Johanns amendment would also weaken the individual mandate, which would mean that fewer people would take subsidies, lowering costs to the government.
The White House supports the Nelson amendment, and voting on the amendments will probably fall along partisan lines (though Nelson’s amendment, which does address the reporting issue, may attract significant bipartisan support and thusly pass). So both parties agree; small businesses should be allowed to cheat on their taxes. In effect, this becomes a small business tax cut (yet again) paid for by an oil company tax increase. Really it just shifts the subsidy from oil and gas companies (which get $35 billion in subsidies a year) to small businesses, which I suppose is defensible.
UPDATE: It should be known that plenty of progressives find the reporting requirements quite burdensome.




45 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Legalized tax evasion = tax avoidance
It’s the mother’s milk of tax legislation.
Correct me if I am wrong. But isn’t the requirement for 1099 reporting in the Affordable Care act going beyond the usual 1099 requirement for services to include goods? This adds a tremendous burden to small businesses, sole proprietor and small partnerships.
If I interpret this correctly it is not the purchasing business that is now allegedly avoiding paying taxes but vendors, most of which I suspect are large corps that have more effective oversight.
I question any savings in taxes by keeping this provision.
As someone who runs a business, I can attest to the fact that Atrios is right. 1099′s are a paperwork nightmare over trivial amounts.
And this is bad for the middle class how?
Oh, and just so we’re clear, it’s not a tax cut. It merely prevents a tax increase in 2012.
A reasonable case can be made that it’s too burdensome. Yes it includes goods, I believe.
Johanns is about to go down, I think Nelson will pass, though.
I listened to a fair amount of Mike Johanns this morning on WJ. This guy is both drunk on Kool Aid and dumber than a bag of hammers. Just amazing.
They keep pushing the claim small business is the hope to return the economy while adding this kind of crap to waht they already have to do. It really discourages startups, if for no other reason a guy or woman who may be a great graphics artist or welder can’t be expected to have a degree in bookkeeping or math and is discouraged from the start.
You are correct. It’s the fact that includes goods is what makes it so insane. I am 100% sure that it will cost far more than $17 billion across the economy to comply with this new requirement.
The problem the requirement is intended to address is under-reporting of income on the vendor side. Vendors come in enough different shapes and sizes that the problem is presumably smaller vendors under-reporting. That was a crime before this requirement was added and will be a crime after it was added. This changes reporting requirements, not the legality of any underlying behavior.
And if you are a small business that commonly sells to other small businesses, this is an even worse nightmare. It’s certain that a significant number of small businesses will not comply, or will have have vanished, or will be late. Almost all of the reasons for that will be innocent, but when the vendor needs to file their taxes, the missing 1099s become a serious headache. And that’s before you get into the errors which will occur and will have to be reconciled, both with your customers and your vendors.
And everyone I know with any experience running a business or doing the books, no matter what their politics are, thinks this requirement is utterly batshit insane. They should rename it the CPA Full Employment Act.
The $600 reporting threshold was unspeakably bad policy that could, by itself, sink the Democratic Party when it is implemented. This is how we treat small businesses during a time of massive unemployment?
It’s neither a tax cut nor an increase, either way. Whatever taxes were due before are due now and after. It is, however, a paperwork nightmare for small businesses if it stays. Evading taxes was a crime before and will remain a crime no matter what happens with this.
This is the kind of thing that big business not only doesn’t object to but encourages as it eliminates their local competitors.
I’d like it go away completely, but I object to some of the other parts of the Johanns amendment. The Nelson amendment is otherwise much saner.
Hell yes. Big business likes any regulation that hurts their competition more than it hurts them.
You are certainly correct. Just making the point that even if we accept the author’s ill-informed implication that small businesspeople are all just a bunch of greedy tax cheats, he’s still got it backwards.
Lots of crimes being legalized ( for some types) these days.
you are right – my “real job” involves employment tax consulting, and the 1099 rules have long been a big part of what I do. In the past, 1099s were only required for $600 or more in payments for services (but not to corporations). If this new provision stopped at extending this to corporations, that would be one thing.
But to extend it to payments for non-service oriented things like vendor payments, etc. is a logistical nightmare for many businesses in general. Also, the fact that goods, supplies, etc. that now fall under the guidelines would have some sort of paper trail for the most part when paid makes this somewhat unnecessary. Further, it creates a nightmare for businesses on this end in terms of updating vendor information including getting federal ID numbers, etc. into the system so it can be tracked and reported.
Of course, there isn’t even a draft of a new 1099 on this yet to see where it would go, and just the programming of systems is a nightmare, let alone the compliance.
I do think that extending the 1099 reporting to corporations and all payments, not just those over $600, is a very good idea though.
Many more poor americans are covered by the healthcare law.
I’m sure it raises $17.1 billion over 10 years at the cost of 5x that in new accounting expenditures from businesses nationwide.
Requiring businesses to fill out yet more burdensome paperwork is a win for bookkeepers and accountants only. They should never have buried something like this in that horrible health care bill.
from an internal IRS watchdog:
The PPACA provision would apply to businesses of all sizes, charities and other tax-exempt organizations, and government entities. These would include, as reflected in IRS data, 26 million non-farm sole proprietorships, four million S corporations, two million C corporations, three million partnerships, two million farming businesses, one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations, and probably more than 100,000 federal, state, and local government entities.
This new requirement has generated a great deal of concern because of its potential to create administrative burdens for businesses, vendors, and the IRS.
First, vendors will have to furnish, and businesses will have to collect, TINs. If the vendor is a sole proprietor who uses his or her Social Security number (SSN) as the TIN, there could be identity theft concerns, especially if TINs essentially become public through routine printing on receipts.
If a vendor fails to furnish a correct TIN, the business is required by law to impose back-up withholding at the rate of 28 percent of the purchase price.
Second, businesses will now have to keep records of all purchases sorted by TIN.
Third, businesses will have to produce and transmit information reports, including many not previously required.
That’s a total of 38.1 million entities. If they each spend $45/yr over the next ten years complying with this requirement, they will have spent more money on compliance than it’s predicted to increase revenue. Almost any business that does any kind of volume will spend $45 just on printing and postage for sending out all the 1099s. That’s such transparently awful policy I don’t know where to begin.
url on that
http://www.taspresskit.irs.gov/userfiles/file/TAS_EPK_Excerpt1_Inforeporting.pdf
So neither of the fixes to this provision passed today, and we’ll see this linger for a while.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/09/14/small-business-bill-advances-as-1099-reporting-changes-fail/
I buy gas for my business vehicle (I am sole employee of two corps I own) at a local truck stop. Do I threaten the clerk to obtain the tax number and corporate address of the franchisee, or have to go to the oil conglomerate, or what? If I have to pay for a USNRC inspection, can I get the Dept. of Energy’s tax number? It is a bloody nightmare, specifically designed to sink HCR legislation. Don’t think it will result in increased tax revenue. It will start on-line services charging $599.99 to do the paperwork, and not reporting the income. This is a great business opportunity, BTW. Just get a database with addresses and tax numbers and an interface to the most popular accounting packages, and most of the work could be done quite economically. I expect the service would be based in the Cayman Islands.
More financial gimmickry to confuse and befuddle the citizens. Another attempt and technique to further weaken and dilute the healthcare bill. You see, no matter what, business will go on. Any tax that is imposed on oil is passed on to the consumer. I don’t care how you try to spin it or double talk it, the consumer will bare the brunt and the underpriviledged will go without. Mark my words. It’s clear and totally obvious that the government is no longer working for the people. Seems like every law or bill they pass nowadays is connected to business and taxes that eventually trickle down to the consumer. A back door to the VAT. The next time you bastards have a war, go fight it yourselves. You are the only ones left with a vested interest in this country anymore since you are the only ones who really make any significant gains from this economy.
If I am not mistaken, goods have always been included for 1099 payments to independent contractors. The amount is the price of goods and services received by the purchaser plus the contractor’s profit, if any. The contractor is responsible for deducting out the goods as a business expense on their own taxes.
Or am I missing something?
this is more about reporting than tax law, designed to limit tax avoidance
Yes, you are correct. This is one of the most small-business hostile regulations I can think of since I’ve been a small business owner.
The administrative overhead of this is going to be a massive additional burden for my business in particular. $600+ purchases from all kinds of various vendors is a very, very common condition amongst IT firms, be they development, consulting, etc. Software, dev program subscriptions, hardware, travel, infrastructure service providers, conferences, etc. etc. etc.
The $600 reporting requirement IS insane and should never have been passed. As others have noted, it includes all goods, not just services, and that is the problem.
If you’re paying someone over $600 in the course of a year for office supplies, raw materials, equipment, what have you – you probably aren’t paying them in cash. You’re using a credit card or check, which hits the supplier’s bank account. There’s now a permanent electronic record of the sale.
There may be some companies (typically in the process of going out of business) that don’t report all sales of this nature. Sooner or later, though, it will catch up with you as the inventory on your books doesn’t match your physical one.
The worst hit by this rule would be relatively small businesses with many suppliers.
Do you really want every purchase you make, over $600, reported to the I.R.S.? One commenter correctly points to a back door VAT. No thanks.
If you are going to report my $600.00 purchase to the government, I will seek out a seller who will not.
Just to give an example. My company currently uses multiple hosting providers to provide service to clients for a variety of purposes. Data integration jobs, application hosting, project management portals, file storage, etc.
We use seven different vendors depending on the kind of hosting products needed for a given task. In a year, they’re all over $600 totally billable. Now I’ve got to file with every single one of those vendors, and that’s just one tiny fraction of my business.
When I first learned of this provision the only thing I could think was that Intuit must have been on the rocks, and this was just a backdoor bailout for them.
The 1099 Reporting Requirement needs to be repealed in its entirety. No ammendments needed..In fact the entire “so called” health care bill needs to be repealed. It is, in its entirety, a bloated boondoggled mess.
Corproations dont pay taxes, people do. All of these taxes and cost of compliance will be passed on to you and all of those dear old “poor people”, which you spend so much energy caring about.
Some of the cost of a business tax increase is passed on and some comes out of business profits. The proportions are a function of the elasticity of demand and supply in the markets in which that business operates. Claiming that they all get passed on to consumers is simplistic hogwash.
Current law exempts payments to corporations and governments amd for purchases of goods and to tax exempts. It is used for financial transactions like dividends and for payment to unincorporated contractors, like indivivduals. The new law would require these forms for everything over $600. That is seen by most businesses as excessive. I don’t follow how the new reporting stops tax cheats, but then I’m not the expert. One loohole in the current law is payment to an individual could be by passed if that person incorporated, I suppose.
In fact yours might be the very target they are after and that is individual contractors who avoid having to pay taxes on payments you make to them. If those individual contractors incorporate under current law, they do not get a 1099.
After a little more thought on the subject I can’t agree. there are good reasons to expand the current law. I would leave it alone and let the IRS issue administrative rulings. I think they were already going to issue rulings for small transactions and for any payments made under a credit card like master card,
i wish them the best of luck (they’ll need it) to find a doctor who is willing to take new medicaid patients.
Pay them all with master card and forget it.
You won’t get a 1099 for buying something. Only if you sell it. Even then I think the IRS is going to administratively exempt those kinds of small transactions. the law is aimed at tax cheats, not you.
Why? He is not going to issue any 1099 since he is selling his service.
CNN disagrees with you; they say that you have to give a 1099 to any business you spend more than 600 dollars at for your own business.
Not saying their interpretation is necessarily right and yours isn’t, but that there’s no consensus on that point yet. It could be somewhat invasive, or unbelievably invasive.
In neither case is it a logical way to pay for health care.
The law is aimed at tax cheats like a predator drone is aimed at terrorists.
Too bad about all that collateral damage.
You don’t understand the new regulation.
you have to read the comment i was responding to. nothing to do with 1099s.
It may be aimed at tax cheats, but it hits every small business. And the predicted gain is peanuts — a ton of paperwork for everyone so the government can get just shy of $2 billion extra a year. A tax policy that imposes a compliance cost larger than the projected revenue from that policy is obviously bonkers.
“So both parties agree; small businesses should be allowed to cheat on their taxes.”
In other news, the poor and low of income should be allowed to cheat on their taxes, too. Because the proper way to collect taxes and enforce the law is to start with those that could evade big, and not waste resources on the small fry that could not cheat their way out of poverty.
http://mithras.blogs.com/blog/2010/07/mindless-paperwork-one-aspect-of-the-health-insurance-reform-law-that-needs-to-change.html