New Tax Law for selling.

You are absolutely correct and I am in the same boat just want to clean house. There is one big problem here is the IRS going to buy "to the best of my recollection" or do we need receipts.
I'm hoping they realize what a can of worms they are opening and revise the law or put it off another year.

Furlan wrote in post #19514879
You are absolutely correct and I am in the same boat just want to clean house. There is one big problem here is the IRS going to buy "to the best of my recollection" or do we need receipts.
I'm hoping they realize what a can of worms they are opening and revise the law or put it off another year.

Our Legislation has had over a year now, and their deferral has only delayed any problem of worms getting out...like many things, politicos see only an immediate 'solution' to one problem, but see none of the issues created by the 'solution'.

Solution: More housing near mass transit...

• where does the water for them come from, when we are already asked to cut water use by 15%
  
• where does the electricity for them come from, when we are begged not to use electricity until after 9pm
  

Solution: reduce emissions of NO2 due to gas water heaters and gas furnaces

• where does the electricity come from, when we are already begged not to use electrical appliances until after 9pm, yet we know electricity needs will increase to meet regs for no-combustion engine utomobiles after 2035?
  
• Here in NorCA it already takes PG&E 6-8 months to approve and install more supply for the few houses that have already planned for conversion...what about the unplanned water heater and furnace failures putting even more unplanned demand on PG&E workers

Has the IRS planned changes in necessary forms, so that folks can report 'sale of personal goods' or 'for reimbursed costs' (both already-exempt transactions!), when 'income' has been reported in 1099K?
We can only hope that one of the politicos pays up-front for a $12000 vacation rental home, they get $9000 of that back from relatives who are sharing the rental, but they get 1099K for $9000 to deal with on tax returns. Cuz it won't get attention until then.

Wilt wrote in post #19514898
Our Legislation has had over a year now, and their deferral has only delayed any problem of worms getting out...like many things, politicos see only an immediate 'solution' to one problem, but see none of the issues created by the 'solution'.

Solution: More housing near mass transit...

• where does the water for them come from, when we are already asked to cut water use by 15%
  
• where does the electricity for them come from, when we are begged not to use electricity until after 9pm
  

Solution: reduce emissions of NO2 due to gas water heaters and gas furnaces

This is all a California thing.

Wilt wrote in post #19514898

• where does the electricity come from, when we are already begged not to use electrical appliances until after 9pm, yet we know electricity needs will increase to meet regs for no-combustion engine utomobiles after 2035?
  
• Here in NorCA it already takes PG&E 6-8 months to approve and install more supply for the few houses that have already planned for conversion...what about the unplanned water heater and furnace failures putting even more unplanned demand on PG&E workers

This is also a California thing.

The comment below refers to the Internal Revenue Service. You do know that the IRS is federal, not state? The bullet points you made above are all California initiatives. So why mention them?

Wilt wrote in post #19514898
Has the IRS planned changes in necessary forms, so that folks can report 'sale of personal goods' or 'for reimbursed costs' (both already-exempt transactions!), when 'income' has been reported in 1099K?
We can only hope that one of the politicos pays up-front for a $12000 vacation rental home, they get $9000 of that back from relatives who are sharing the rental, but they get 1099K for $9000 to deal with on tax returns. Cuz it won't get attention until then.

What home in California is $12,000? If they get $9000 back from sharing a rental, that is something entirely different. It is a rental, not a sale, and doesn't apply to this law.

I cite CA issues only as representiing the fact that politicians put into place 'solutions' but never think thru the complexities created by the solution. Same lack of thinking thru the 'solution' to income not being taxed results in the complexity of 'what about...' when all transactions >$600 are now reported.

Texas legislated its electrical system isolation when it refused to join interstate electrical grids and railed against energy regulation. That resulted in the inability to import power, causing the blackout in 2021 due to ice storms.

Rent a vacation home for $12000 ... Heck, $2350 per night in Cape Cod 4 br, only takes 5 nights (cannot forget the cleaning fee)
https://www.airbnb.com …83244383_RIrb39​arc5bCLp3Y

Such transactions would be reported by Paypal in 1099K, when 3 other couples share the costs for the place and reimburse the couple who booked the place. Reimbursement of shared cost has no exchange of goods, yet WOULD be reported in teh 1099K at the end of year...Paypal has no idea if three people are buying something or why the money is exchanged...the simply comply with the reporting requirement.

Wilt wrote in post #19514926
I cite CA issues only as representiing the fact that politicians put into place 'solutions' but never think thru the complexities created by the solution. Same lack of thinking thru the 'solution' to income not being taxed results in the complexity of 'what about...' when all transactions >$600 are now reported.

Rent a vacation home for $12000 ... Heck, $2350 per night in Cape Cod 4 br, only takes 5 nights (cannot forget the cleaning fee)
https://www.airbnb.com …83244383_RIrb39​arc5bCLp3Y

Such transactions would be reported by Paypal in 1099K, when 3 other couples share the costs for the place and reimburse the couple who booked the place. Reimbursement of shared cost has no exchange of goods, yet WOULD be reported in teh 1099K at the end of year...Paypal has no idea if three people are buying something or why the money is exchanged...the simply comply with the reporting requirement.

The CA issues merely made your post confusing.
It is easy to sort out those details of sharing, it is done all the time. You seem to be complaining for the sake of complaining.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19514933
The CA issues merely made your post confusing.
It is easy to sort out those details of sharing, it is done all the time. You seem to be complaining for the sake of complaining.

No, this topic was started as a warning about the implications of the legislation, in the context of us as hobbyists selling our used personal goods to one another yet having such activity reported as if 'income' were derived.
The legislation did not think thru the reporting, so they had to defer reporting for a full year. It still has not thought thru how to report the exemptions (sale of personal property, or reimbursement of shared expense) so as not to tax folks wrongly. Not a complaint; a statement of fact.
Folks truly in business of buy and sellilng goods are not affected adversely; the hobbyist is.

Wilt wrote in post #19514937
No, this topic was started as a warning about the implications of the legislation, in the context of us as hobbyists selling our used personal goods to one another yet having such activity reported as if 'income' were derived.
The legislation did not think thru the reporting, so they had to defer reporting for a full year. It still has not thought thru how to report the exemptions (sale of personal property, or reimbursement of shared expense) so as not to tax folks wrongly. Not a complaint; a statement of fact.
Folks truly in business of buy and sellilng goods are not affected adversely; the hobbyist is.

But you changed the thread when you started talking about California. Are you saying you can't drift a thread? See post 65 for what you wrote.

So there is something wrong with using an analogous situation (legislation poorly thought through in the exectuion of the legislation) as examples of that flawed process, according to your criticism.
OK, think that way; fine by me The moderators don't need carping....it is fine to have differing opinions.

Wilt wrote in post #19514946
So there is something wrong with using an analogous situation (legislation poorly thought through in the exectuion of the legislation) as examples of that flawed process, according to your criticism.
OK, think that way; fine by me The moderators don't need carping....it is fine to have differing opinions.

There is very little income selling personal items, so this is really a tempest in a teapot. The PG&E issues in post 63 aren't related to any legislature. It is just inefficiency on their part.

Legislation: When your gas furnace/water heater fails, you must replace with an electric appliance
The problem of the legislation; PG&E has to approve your increased-size electric panel placement, that can take months to happen, then more months for them to connect the greater electrical supply
For the consumer: My furnace is broken today, replacement of furnace with electric unit cannot happen for 6-8 months, so I have to freeze in the interim.

The fault is not PG&E, the fault is the delay from time of furnace failure to the time a legal replacement can be installed...the legislation does not mention a temporary installation of gas furnace in such situations. 'Your replacement must NOT be gas.'

Pardon the thread drift, I did not want this to happen, but 'he made me' exemplify poorly thought thru legislation.

Wilt wrote in post #19514960
Legislation: When your gas furnace/water heater fails, you must replace with an electric appliance
The problem of the legislation; PG&E has to approve your increased-size electric panel placement, that can take months to happen, then more months for them to connect the greater electrical supply
For the consumer: My furnace is broken today, replacement of furnace with electric unit cannot happen for 6-8 months, so I have to freeze in the interim.

The fault is not PG&E, the fault is the delay from time of furnace failure to the time a legal replacement can be installed...the legislation does not mention a temporary installation of gas furnace in such situations. 'Your replacement must NOT be gas.'

Pardon the thread drift, I did not want this to happen, but 'he made me' exemplify poorly thought thru legislation.

That doesn't happen for 7 years- 2030:
https://www.latimes.co​m …naces-and-heaters-by-2030

You can buy gas appliances in CA now, so it isn't germane to the conversation. Newer homes may well be able to handle the greater load now without modification. My house, 16 years old, has electrical capacity beyond what I need even now. You cite a law that doesn't go into effect for seven years, so how should we evaluate your commentary on an unrelated tax law?

Please stop carping about my posts, before moderators cause that to happen. I am not furthering bickering, for that reason I try to keep my contributions factual.

Wilt wrote in post #19514968
Please stop carping about my posts, before moderators cause that to happen. I am not furthering bickering, for that reason I try to keep my contributions factual.

There lies the problem. I don't see the facts, but some opinions presented as facts. A law taking effect in 7 years has little in common with current tax laws for hobbyists.

There is no issue here… just keep track of your purchases and when you sell, you list the losses. You can also list personal payments. I know this is true because my CPA handled this for us.

Again, this has been in place for years, it is only the limits that have changed.

The big hassle here is that people now have to keep records of all things purchased where they didn’t have to before.

They delayed this because all the payment providers complained about the undue pressures they would face to handle the new reporting and rules.

Wilt wrote in post #19514898

Furlan wrote in post #19514879
You are absolutely correct and I am in the same boat just want to clean house. There is one big problem here is the IRS going to buy "to the best of my recollection" or do we need receipts.
I'm hoping they realize what a can of worms they are opening and revise the law or put it off another year.

Our Legislation has had over a year now, and their deferral has only delayed any problem of worms getting out...like many things, politicos see only an immediate 'solution' to one problem, but see none of the issues created by the 'solution'.

Solution: More housing near mass transit...

• where does the water for them come from, when we are already asked to cut water use by 15%
  
• where does the electricity for them come from, when we are begged not to use electricity until after 9pm
  

Solution: reduce emissions of NO2 due to gas water heaters and gas furnaces

• where does the electricity come from, when we are already begged not to use electrical appliances until after 9pm, yet we know electricity needs will increase to meet regs for no-combustion engine utomobiles after 2035?
  
• Here in NorCA it already takes PG&E 6-8 months to approve and install more supply for the few houses that have already planned for conversion...what about the unplanned water heater and furnace failures putting even more unplanned demand on PG&E workers

Has the IRS planned changes in necessary forms, so that folks can report 'sale of personal goods' or 'for reimbursed costs' (both already-exempt transactions!), when 'income' has been reported in 1099K?
We can only hope that one of the politicos pays up-front for a $12000 vacation rental home, they get $9000 of that back from relatives who are sharing the rental, but they get 1099K for $9000 to deal with on tax returns. Cuz it won't get attention until then.

That $9,000 reimbursement for sharing a rental home would be done as a “Friends and FAMILY” transfer (assuming they’re not idiots), and would not be reported on a 1099.