View source for Talk:Tax deduction

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Taxation|importance=High}}
}}
==Definition==
This article fails to actually define what a "Tax Deduction" is. It begins "Income tax systems generally allow a tax deduction for various items, especially expenses incurred to produce income." This sentence does not explain what a tax deduction is. What is a tax deduction?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.192.26.201|71.192.26.201]] ([[User talk:71.192.26.201|talk]]) 14:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Good comment.  I added a short phrase explaining. Sometimes we fail to state the obvious. :) [[User:Oldtaxguy|Oldtaxguy]] ([[User talk:Oldtaxguy|talk]]) 22:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"We are in the age of free passage between the air ports (with Visas & endorsements). I strongly think that THE DEMOCRATS "have to change" the logo from "a donkey to a horse or a ship or even an eagle...donkey is unacceptable by any standards...". I wish Dems think like an EAGLE as well....". And, I agree that the Donkey carries a ton of weight without complaining !....Thank you.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2001:569:7C46:200:401B:CFA8:D7D9:896F|2001:569:7C46:200:401B:CFA8:D7D9:896F]] ([[User talk:2001:569:7C46:200:401B:CFA8:D7D9:896F#top|talk]]) 02:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Primary residence==
What does it take to have a home be a primary residence

:In the US, you have to own and use the house, living there a majority of the time.  If there is doubt, the IRS apparently has some rules; if you get your mail there, have your car registered there, vote there, and you bank there and hang out there, then it's your primary residence.  An article at [http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20030707_principalresidence.htm] talks about a couple who were ruled to have no primary residence at all, in the IRS's opinion. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tempshill|Tempshill]] ([[User talk:Tempshill|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tempshill|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> on 19 February 2005.

==Depletion allowance==
The red link for "oil depletion allowance" should probably be changed since royalties also are subject to depletion allowances; hence we can knockout two birds with one stone by starting the articcle to cover both.  Depletion allowance is already listed as a missing article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Hot/D2]  On royalty depletions, see http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch10.html    [[User:Have Gun, Will Travel|Have Gun, Will Travel]] 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

::Dear Have Gun, Will Travel: Yes, at least in the United States the term "depletion allowance" refers to a deduction allowable against certain kinds of royalty income or income from the production of natural resources, especially oil and gas royalties (also other stuff like uranium, sulphur, etc.). At least with respect to the term "depletion allowance" as used in U.S. Federal income tax law, if you decide to begin an article on the subject you may want to distinguish the two kinds: cost depletion and percentage depletion. The basic statutes are {{usc|26|611}} (covering basic provisions); {{usc|26|612}} (cost depletion); {{usc|26|613}} (percentage depletion); and {{usc|26|613A}} (percentage depletion on oil & gas production, etc.), all the way through to about {{usc|26|617}}.

::Depletion allowance deductions on individual income tax returns are perhaps relatively more common where you have independent production of oil and gas, as in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas (where I am), than in places where no mining of natural resources takes place. Yours, [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks.  The starting point is probably [[Royalties]] to make a clear distinction between copyright, patent, and resource royalties.  May need help with that.  [[User:Have Gun, Will Travel|Have Gun, Will Travel]] 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Found it.  [[Tax depletion]].   [[User:Have Gun, Will Travel|Have Gun, Will Travel]] 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

==Needs work==
I've made a few changes regarding U.S. Federal income taxation. I've realized that I have never really read this article carefully all the way through. Some of the statements were incorrect, and others somewhat misleading.

The subject of tax deductions for U.S. Federal income taxation purposes is highly complex. Blanket statements tend to be problematic. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:This article is little more than a stub with a non-comprehensive list that may be interpreted as comprehensive.  It needs a lot of work.[[User:Oldtaxguy|Oldtaxguy]] ([[User talk:Oldtaxguy|talk]]) 20:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

==Example question==
Quick question... I'm a little confused on this example, which contradicts the first example.  I'm not sure if it is the difference with U.S. law or if it is just incorrect.  Here is the example given:

{{quotation|As an example, if a person's highest portion of taxable income is taxed at 25% (progressive scale from 10 to 35 percent), then a $1,000 [[charitable contribution]] will result in a reduced tax bill of $250 (25% of the contribution).  E.g., if a taxpayer would otherwise have owed the federal government $3,250 in income taxes; the new tax bill would be $3,000.  As a second example, if a person was charged an early withdrawal penalty of $1000 for breaking a banking certificate of deposit (CD) before maturity, and that person's highest taxable income was in the 35% bracket, then the deduction would reduce the overall tax bill by $350.}}

Taking the first part of this example, it is applying the 25% rate to the post-tax donation of $1,000 for a return of $250.  However, $1,330 was earned to make a $1000 donation ($1000 being a 25% rate applied to $1,330).  So should the return actually be $330 and not $250?  Is it the income required to make a $1000 donation (pre-tax) or post-tax deduction from income?  In the first example using a flat rate of 33%, $600 was equal to an untaxed $900 (a 33% rate applied to $900), and not equal to $798 (a 33% rate applied to $600 post-tax). [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]]  <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</i></small>

:I think the $1,000 is the pre-tax donation. The donor gets the tax benefit so the net amount he spends on the gift is $750.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

==Invalid USC reference==
The reference for the third bullet point under [[Tax deduction#United States]]:

{{cquote|Qualified mortgage insurance premiums that are treated as qualified residence interest expense, for certain home loans, for mortgage insurance contracts issued on or after January 1, 2007}}

References {{uscsub|26|163|h|3|E|i}} doesn't exist.  [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] ([[User talk:Cburnett|talk]]) 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::Dear editor Cburnett: Well, section 163(h)(3)(E)(i) does exist - it's just that the Cornell Law School website version of the US code has not yet been updated to reflect the latest changes in section 163. Here is the exact text, from title 26, USC section 163, subsection (h), paragraph (3), subparagraph (E) (reproduced here only in part):

::::(E) MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS TREATED AS INTEREST. --

::::(i) IN GENERAL. --Premiums paid or accrued for qualified mortgage insurance by a taxpayer during the taxable year in connection with acquisition indebtedness with respect to a qualified residence of the taxpayer shall be treated for purposes of this section as interest which is qualified residence interest.

::The above is from the online ''CCH Internet Tax Research'' website. Unfortunately, to get the very latest version of a statute like this online without going to a law library, you may have to have an expensive subscription  to an online service like CCH, Lexis, Westlaw, or RIA Thomson. The Cornell web site is good if you don't need the very latest version, or you don't need to see all the earlier versions. For example, CCH online shows essentially every change in every section of the Internal Revenue Code since August of 1954 -- a massive amount of verbiage.

::What I have been doing when I run across this problem in tax-related Wikipedia articles is to add a notation to the effect that the Cornell web site has not yet been updated for this particular provision. I'll add a notation in the article. Yours, [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::OK, I have added the explanation to the footnote. The other option is simply to remove the link, wait for Cornell to update its web site, then re-add the link. I'm not sure which option is better. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

==Canada==
Tax deductions are listed for US, UK and Australia, I was wondering if anyone familiar with Canadian tax laws and appropriate conditions might detail its distinct features and differences from the others for those who are interested. [[User:Tyciol|Tyciol]] ([[User talk:Tyciol|talk]]) 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:You may want to post this request to the [[Taxation in Canada]] talk as well.  It is more likely editors that are familiar with those tax laws would be watching that particular article. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]]  <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>13:15, 02 March 2008 (UTC)</i></small>
==Deduction of In-Kind contributions==
Should there be inclusion of Deduction of In-Kind contributions in US section? Of course the IRS would rather taxpayers didn't 
:# know about this, and
:# bother with trying to get deductions. 
::[[User:WCFrancis|wcf]] <span style="color:#660000; font-size:x-small;">Facts are stubborn.</span> [[User_talk:WCFrancis#Welcome_to_Visitors|''Comments?'']] 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC) 
<!--Sorry forgot to log in before first save. wcf -->

== Proposal for expansion/globalization ==

I have drafted a significant expansion of this article, with a view toward globalizing and generalizing it quite a bit.  The draft is and will be posted for 2+ weeks on my talk page (link below) prior to posting the update, to give folks a bit of time to comment. Following is a proposed outline (slightly revised from last post:

*Intro
*Business expenses
**Cost of goods sold
**Trading or Ordinary and necessary expenses
**Accounting methods
**Limits on deductions  (e.g., T&E, autos)
*Capitalized items & depreciation
*Nonbusiness expenses
**Income producing expenses (where different from business expenses)
**Losses
**Itemized deductions and personal reliefs, including personal exemptions
*Group relief
*references, further reading, etc
*

Please feel free to edit the talk page as a way of commenting on the draft.  Help on this is much appreciated, particularly with respect to non-U.S. discussions.[[User:Oldtaxguy|Oldtaxguy]] ([[User talk:Oldtaxguy|talk]]) 22:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

== Greatly expanded article  ==

Dear colleagues,
I will post the greatly expanded article over the weekend of 24 April 2010 unless someone objects.  The draft is on my talk page.  Known issues:
*Add short paragraph on offsetting deductions against other types of income, including ref. to US passive activity rules
*More globalization needed.  I will retain the globalize flag.
*A few references (mostly non-US) are incomplete.  HELP!!

The new article is about 18k plus links (2.8k words), up from 8k total.

Comments appreciated.[[User:Oldtaxguy|Oldtaxguy]] ([[User talk:Oldtaxguy|talk]]) 22:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

=="Tautological" tax deduction?==

A new editor inserted the word "tautological" before the words "tax deduction" in the first sentence. I reverted. I don't think the word "tautological" belongs in the first sentence of this article, as in "tautological tax deduction." There is no such thing as a "tautological tax deduction."

A tautology is a "needless repetition of an idea in a different word, phrase, or sentence...." ''Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language'', p. 1458, World Publishing Company (2nd Coll. Ed. 1978). Virtually all Wikipedia articles follow some variation of this format, which involves "repeating" the title of the article in the first sentence of the article -- in bold letters. Yes, this is a "repetition," but it is not considered a "needless" repetition; it's simply Wikipedia format. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)