-

[mufa23]

I wonder if the news about the IRS today has anything to do with Labrat. Maybe Labrat was notified/knew about these IRS changes a few months before they announced it today?

[1714145631]

1714145631

[bittymitty]

Ok let presume that Lat Rat is not a fraudster and is working his hardest to keep this thing going while honoring the original agreement.

Why can we not get the following information:

Current bond list

Original contract details

Why has the following not been provided:

Any business report/financials

A trading platform

These are basic requirements that have nothing to do with any laws/statutes

Can anyone answer any of these questions or answer why we should not be privilege to this?

Maybe Lab Rat could clarify this?

[BKM]

Ok let presume that Lat Rat is not a fraudster and is working his hardest to keep this thing going while honoring the original agreement.

Why can we not get the following information:

Current bond list

Original contract details

Why has the following not been provided:

Any business report/financials

A trading platform

These are basic requirements that have nothing to do with any laws/statutes

Can anyone answer any of these questions or answer why we should not be privilege to this?

Maybe Lab Rat could clarify this?

I wish I could. I really do. But, alas. No.

[Flashman]

Ok let presume that Lat Rat is not a fraudster

He's more along the lines of an overoptimistic kid who's about to get a gigantic, spiky, dose of reality shoved up his ass.

[sparky999]

Ok let presume that Lat Rat is not a fraudster

He's more along the lines of an overoptimistic kid who's about to get a gigantic, spiky, dose of reality shoved up his ass.

Yeah I agree, I think he honestly thinks his LLC is gonna protect him but in reality I think the corporate veil will be pierced very easily.

[||bit]

I notice earlier today that the inventory on Dave's website (www.megabigpower.com) was updated. This must have been done in the past day or two - not long after I was commenting about the peculiar nature of his inventory being available while Labrat hadn't reported any hardware received... Interesting... Just a hypothesis here, maybe Dave actually needed to update his website, and LR called Dave to ask him to update it because of the obvious questions it raised. After all, the consequence of Dave having hardware to ship would not look right if LR wasn't receiving anything. Dave is apparently shifting from selling hardware to creating a farm to lease GH (which is Dave's only remaining retail product). As such, just guessing that any future hardware sells would be only with high volume customers - e.g. Coinseed, LRM.

[bobfranklin]

I notice earlier today that the inventory on Dave's website (www.megabigpower.com) was updated. This must have been done in the past day or two - not long after I was commenting about the peculiar nature of his inventory being available while Labrat hadn't reported any hardware received... Interesting... Just a hypothesis here, maybe Dave actually needed to update his website, and LR called Dave to ask him to update it because of the obvious questions it raised. After all, the consequence of Dave having hardware to ship would not look right if LR wasn't receiving anything. Dave is apparently shifting from selling hardware to creating a farm to lease GH (which is Dave's only remaining retail product). As such, just guessing that any future hardware sells would be only with high volume customers - e.g. Coinseed, LRM.

For posterity can you list the before/after numbers? (units or hash whatever you feel is best).

I'm curious is all, from memory the "in hand" hashrate was a deal lower? (not second guessing at all, as I said, just curious).

[contactmike1]

Has anyone digested the IRS information?  Does this mean labrat needs to start issuing 1099s?  I am not a tax expert, but it seems the guidance suggests he needs to start issuing paperwork to everyone in the USA.  

http://www.coindesk.com/irs-bitcoin-tax-guidelines-mean/
http://www.coindesk.com/internal-revenue-service-treat-digital-currencies-property/
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Virtual-Currency-Guidance
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-21.pdf

The IRS claims the ruling is retroactive, so technically, people need to amend their tax returns for all bitcoin activity back to 2008.  Really...?  Surely they can't be serious.  I doubt anyone has a record of every bitcoin transaction they have done since 2008, and the price they bought and sold for (basis) in order to calculate capital gains.

[oldbushie]

Wait, what?? Retroactive? Shit.

Edit: Where in the official pdf does it say that it's retroactive?

[contactmike1]

Wait, what?? Retroactive? Shit.

Q-16: Will taxpayers be subject to penalties for having treated a virtual currency transaction in a manner that is inconsistent with this notice prior to March 25, 2014?

A-16: Taxpayers may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with tax laws. For example, underpayments attributable to virtual currency transactions may be subject to penalties, such as accuracy-related penalties under section 6662. In addition, failure to timely or correctly report virtual currency transactions when required to do so may be subject to information reporting penalties under section 6721 and 6722.  However, penalty relief may be available to taxpayers and persons required to file an information return who are able to establish that the underpayment or failure to properly file information returns is due to reasonable cause.

[LostDutchman]

Wait, what?? Retroactive? Shit.

Edit: Where in the official pdf does it say that it's retroactive?

Right here:

" Q-16: Will taxpayers be subject to penalties for having treated a virtual currency transaction in a manner that is inconsistent with this notice prior to March 25, 2014? A-16:
 Taxpayers may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with tax laws. For example, underpayments attributable to virtual currency transactions may be subject to penalties, such as accuracy-related penalties under section 6662. In addition, failure to timely or correctly report virtual currency transactions when required to do so may be subject to information reporting penalties under section 6721 and 6722. However, penalty relief may be available to taxpayers and persons required to file an information return who are able to establish that the underpayment or failure to properly file information returns is due to reasonable cause."

Bitcoin has now gone MAINSTREAM!

Yippie-Cai-Yah!

My $.02.

[oldbushie]

That doesn't tell me anything. At best it just means "for this year" not "for all previous years". My tax guy said this:

"Yeah since there's no reporting coming into them from any outside source yet, there's really no way for them to even know anything about mining or bitcoins being bought and sold prior to this year."

[contactmike1]

That doesn't tell me anything. At best it just means "for this year" not "for all previous years". My tax guy said this:

"Yeah since there's no reporting coming into them from any outside source yet, there's really no way for them to even know anything about mining or bitcoins being bought and sold prior to this year."

Prior to March 25, 2014 does mean all years prior.  However, you are correct about reporting.  It's unlikely the IRS has much 2008-2013 information to bust people, but you never know.  The NSA has a far reaching databank.  

Personally, I've always reported all gains as ordinary income.  Mostly because the law has always stated that all income needs to be reported, and I didn't want to have to go back once guidance was issued.  

[sparky999]

That doesn't tell me anything. At best it just means "for this year" not "for all previous years". My tax guy said this:

"Yeah since there's no reporting coming into them from any outside source yet, there's really no way for them to even know anything about mining or bitcoins being bought and sold prior to this year."

That is just plain wrong, some exchanges already report and hv been doing so for some time.

[maqifrnswa]

That doesn't tell me anything. At best it just means "for this year" not "for all previous years". My tax guy said this:

"Yeah since there's no reporting coming into them from any outside source yet, there's really no way for them to even know anything about mining or bitcoins being bought and sold prior to this year."

The new guidance is that cryptocurrencies always were property, not just starting this year - but since their origination. Therefore, if you didn't report them as property in 2008, you were committing tax evasion in 2008. However, they will graciously allow you to voluntarily report those previous earnings and they won't penalize you.

Your tax advisor is correct. Without 1099s, there is nearly no way (or at least it is massively cost prohibitive) for the IRS to track down every bitcoin user prior to this year. It doesn't change the fact that you were supposed to do it since 2008.

In my opinion, this is a band-aid until the IRS figures out real rules. They need something so the new bitcoin millionaires can get taxed, but it isn't ideal for the IRS nor users.

LRM could be fine, they just need to collect SSNs and addresses of everyone and issue 1099MISCs for everyone that earned a total of $600 in a given year (valued at the time dividends were sent). If LR stored bitcoin, he'd need to pay tax on his earnings. I'm assuming he set up his LLC as a pasthrough, so he'll pay individual rates on distributions he makes to himself. This is an additional complication, and something I pointed out 50 or so pages ago - but was told that LR doesn't keep anything in BTC so this wouldn't be an issue. strikethrough, it can be complicated depending on the wording of the new "contracts" so I don't really know how this effects LRM.

[oldbushie]

I haven't actually sold any of my bitcoins. About the only thing the IRS could possibly track (form-wise, not blockchain-wise) is that I bought some via Coinbase last year. All of my current bitcoins were earned via mining.

[contactmike1]

In my opinion, this is a band-aid until the IRS figures out real rules. They need something so the new bitcoin millionaires can get taxed, but it isn't ideal for the IRS nor users.

LRM could be fine, they just need to collect SSNs and addresses of everyone and issue 1099MISCs for everyone that earned a total of $600 in a given year (valued at the time dividends were sent). If LR stored bitcoin, he'd need to pay tax on his earnings. I'm assuming he set up his LLC as a pasthrough, so he'll pay individual rates on distributions he makes to himself. This is an additional complication, and something I pointed out 50 or so pages ago - but was told that LR doesn't keep anything in BTC so this wouldn't be an issue. strikethrough, it can be complicated depending on the wording of the new "contracts" so I don't really know how this effects LRM.

This was my fear.  Not that I care about giving the data, but would labrat want to shutdown instead of comply with tax and reporting rules?  It does also depend how labrat structures things.  Some people won't give up this info, so some of the bonds might become "invalid".  Lots of crazy scenarios are possible pending the final decision.  I hope this was the issue causing the original problem.  I'd hate for this to be an additional problem for labrat to deal with.

[LostDutchman]

In my opinion, this is a band-aid until the IRS figures out real rules. They need something so the new bitcoin millionaires can get taxed, but it isn't ideal for the IRS nor users.

LRM could be fine, they just need to collect SSNs and addresses of everyone and issue 1099MISCs for everyone that earned a total of $600 in a given year (valued at the time dividends were sent). If LR stored bitcoin, he'd need to pay tax on his earnings. I'm assuming he set up his LLC as a pasthrough, so he'll pay individual rates on distributions he makes to himself. This is an additional complication, and something I pointed out 50 or so pages ago - but was told that LR doesn't keep anything in BTC so this wouldn't be an issue. strikethrough, it can be complicated depending on the wording of the new "contracts" so I don't really know how this effects LRM.

This was my fear.  Not that I care about giving the data, but would labrat want to shutdown instead of comply with tax and reporting rules?  It does also depend how labrat structures things.  Some people won't give up this info, so some of the bonds might become "invalid".  Lots of crazy scenarios are possible pending the final decision.  I hope this was the issue causing the original problem.  I'd hate for this to be an additional problem for labrat to deal with.

It already is.

My $.02.

[contactmike1]

All of my current bitcoins were earned via mining.

Mining is a taxable event, so if you mined 1btc today, you'd need to report about $585 of income today.

[sparky999]

I would bet a large amount that lab rat had no pre knowledge of the IRS ruling and it has nothing to do with the issues he has supposedly been working on for months. The IRS simply does not pick favourites to pre release information to.