[HUG ] SV: Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Tom Just Olsen <tjols@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:42:30 +0200 (MEST)
Sure, this is very similar as over here. But here in Norway I am only an
ordinary employee with no possibility to deduct any 'hobby expenses' from my
income.
But my wife and I own a forest estate in Sweden. This is reckoned as a
'business' according to Swedish tax rules. We have to make a tax declaration
every year, declare income, deduct expenses, VAT paid and VAT charged. We have
a depreciation plan where we depreciate any large investments done during the
year, like machinery, tools, protective clothes, roads or plantings - and pay
32% tax on any profit. Running a forest estate like this is indeed a tax
planning exercise. But sorry, no photo equipment can be deducted. And there
is no discussion! Swedish tax authorities are very strict and the rules are
very specific; it got to be very 'forest industry related'.
Tom of Oslo
> From: Gary Todoroff [datamaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 2008-10-16 04:55:19 CEST
> To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
>
> You are in business in the US if you engage in financial activity
> with the intent to make a profit. The same rules apply whether you
> are a multi-million dollar company or an individual who loses money
> most of the time. The IRS "guidelines" stipulate that you should show
> a profit for some years, but I don't know what is the exact number of
> years. Tax LAW, last I heard, did not specify that you had to always
> make a profit, although numerous years of losses could trigger an IRS
> audit. In any case, the tax laws were made for the big guys, but the
> little guys get to play by the same rules. There is absolutely
> nothing shady about taking whatever deductions you are entitled to by
> the rules, as long as you are not fraudulent in your declaration of
> income and expense. That is the difference between tax AVOIDANCE and
> tax EVASION.
>
> What I really hate is the smug attitude of someone who has always
> collected a paycheck who says to the businessman, "Can't you just
> write it off?" That is money out of your pocket, no matter what the
> expense. A write-off is money spent, plain and simple. If you can
> justify it as a business expense, however, some or all of it can be
> deducted from the profit of your business on which taxes are paid. An
> expense as large as the stratospheric cost of a Hassleblad these days
> would probably need to be put on a deduction schedule, in which you
> can only show a portion of the overall expense over a few years. In
> these digital days, you may not be able to actually deduct all the
> equipment expense from your profit until long after the equipment is obsolete.
>
> In any case, I'm neither a lawyer nor an accountant. All the money I
> give those gusy to keep up with the insane rules, however, is a
> business tax "write-off", and an absurd waste of money that I would
> much rather keep in my pocket!! If you are not filing an IRS Schedule
> C these days showing profit and loss for some kind of business, then
> just kiss your paycheck money goodbye as it takes wings toward the
> bottomless pit called Washington, D.C.
>
> Gary Todoroff
>
>
>
> >>In the USA, You must be trying to run a business.... with verifiable
> >>"things" that you do to maintain a business.... Then and only then can you
> >>deduct your costs.... and yes, from your other income if it is a loss.
> >>
> >>Buying a $75K Hasselblad or Leica S2 system, taking it off the taxes and
> >>then doing absolutely nothing to actually run a business ( real
> >>advertising, some jobs, maybe a few customer meetings) will get your
> >>deduction dumped if you get audited.
> >>
> >>The trick it to run the business at a zero, or, better yet, $1 profit a
> >>year.... and then run it forever...... Then you can buy a $75 Blad system
> >>and they can not complain...... as long as you can show you used the
> >>equipment in earning the revenue.......
> >>
> >>I think our Tax guys are more intolerant.........than the Canadians......
> >>
> >>
> >>Frank Filippone
> >>red735i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> =============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
- Follow-Ups:
- [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Richard Schiff
- References:
- [HUG ] A Sad Day
- From: Bob Adler
- [HUG ] Re: A Sad Day
- From: Jack Maddox
- [HUG ] On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Sue Pearce
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Richard Schiff
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Richard Schiff
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Richard Schiff
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Frank Filippone
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Jim Brick
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Frank Filippone
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Frank Filippone
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Frank Filippone
- [HUG ] SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Tom Just Olsen
- [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Frank Filippone
- [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Gary Todoroff
Other related posts:
- » [HUG ] SV: Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- » [HUG ] SV: Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- » [HUG ] SV: Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- » [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Richard Schiff
- [HUG ] A Sad Day
- From: Bob Adler
- [HUG ] Re: A Sad Day
- From: Jack Maddox
- [HUG ] On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Sue Pearce
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Richard Schiff
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Richard Schiff
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Richard Schiff
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Frank Filippone
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Jim Brick
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Frank Filippone
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Frank Filippone
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Frank Filippone
- [HUG ] SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Tom Just Olsen
- [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Frank Filippone
- [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Franc Flipsen
- [HUG ] Re: SV: Re: On the subject of equipement cost
- From: Gary Todoroff