So, it seems the Biden administration can't seem to lose enough...

originally posted by: rnaa

Wanting to and having the resources to do so are two different things.

What resources? The administration is pushing the IRS to force financial institutions to report income above a certain threshold. No resources needed for accruing information sent to you electronically.

originally posted by: rnaa
An audit

No one said anything about audits.

originally posted by: rnaa

ETA: And when you talked about interest bearing accounts, 1099's are only issued on accounts that actually accrue interest...what about tax deferred structures? There's little reason to report that, however, as i understand it unless im mistaken any INCOME (even if it falls to a tax deferred annuity for example or other tax deferred structure) would now be reported.

Yes. As I understand it that is EXACTLY the kind of income this new reporting requirement is designed to catch.

Do you think that's a problem? or no?

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: rnaa

Wanting to and having the resources to do so are two different things.

What resources? The administration is pushing the IRS to force financial institutions to report income above a certain threshold. No resources needed for accruing information sent to you electronically.

The resources needed to chase you up (i.e. audit your returns). They will be looking for patterns of big money movements of unreported income.

originally posted by: rnaa
An audit

No one said anything about audits.

Fine. An audit is what the IRS does to check if you have been paying all your tax you should be paying. If you aren't worried about the IRS auditing you, then this new reporting requirement is nothing to worry about.

ETA: And when you talked about interest bearing accounts, 1099's are only issued on accounts that actually accrue interest...what about tax deferred structures? There's little reason to report that, however, as i understand it unless im mistaken any INCOME (even if it falls to a tax deferred annuity for example or other tax deferred structure) would now be reported.

Yes. As I understand it that is EXACTLY the kind of income this new reporting requirement is designed to catch.

Do you think that's a problem? or no?

Absolutely not.

I don't have any such accounts and those folks who do should be paying tax on the income. End of story.

originally posted by: rnaa


The resources needed to chase you up (i.e. audit your returns). They will be looking for patterns of big money movements of unreported income.

True, but again, this is about reporting bank account information, not earned income directly to the IRS. It's encroachment on personal privacy.

originally posted by: rnaa
Absolutely not.

I don't have any such accounts and those folks who do should be paying tax on the income. End of story.

You don't think there's something wrong with forcing banks to directly report tax deferred structures designed by the banks - not customers - to the IRS?

Im going to have to part ways with this...when i cash it out sure, then 1099 me, until then i dont want anyone looking at my personal holdings for any reason.

Think $600 is an arbitrary number out of a hat? Your state lottery commission will let retailers payout winnings of $599 on the spot. $600+ has to to a regional lottery location to fill out paperwork for taxes.

But why the extra scrutiny when your banking institution tracks every penny anyway? The digital dollar means the banks go away as Uncle Sugar runs the show. Why would a middleman be needed in direct electronic currency transfers?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Why would a middleman be needed in direct electronic currency transfers?

It's a good question.

I would think the last thing the IRS or banks want, is for people to start putting "cash under their mattresses" in some effort to retain privacy.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
But why the extra scrutiny when your banking institution tracks every penny anyway?

Banks still have to be subpoena'ed for customer records, otherwise the DOJ for instance wouldn't need to for Trump's records when that was in the news cycle. However, if what they propose comes to fruition, it would mean that literally ALL banking records (because lets face it, the overwhleming majority of people make deposits/withdrawls of well over $600 annually) would have immediate scrutiny by the feds. To me, that's a problem.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Is the bank FDIC Insured or a participant of the Federal Reserve System? Don’t have to subpoenaed if it is part of the program. Trump’s IRS tax records are a different matter than banking records.

originally posted by: Ahabstar

Trump’s IRS tax records are a different matter than banking records.

Im talking about Deutsche Bank, not his tax records.

a reply to: alphabetaone

That would be a bank outside the Federal Reserve System, right?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: alphabetaone

That would be a bank outside the Federal Reserve System, right?

For the purposes of this discussion, no.


His holdings were a part of whats called the DBTCA (Deutsche Bank Trust Company America)

Per the Deutsche Wealth Management website:

Important facts about DBTCA
— DBTCA is a New York State chartered bank and a member of the Federal Reserve System
— DBTCA is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and clients’ deposits are
insured by the FDIC up to the applicable limits
— DBTCA is supervised and examined by the Federal Reserve Board, the New York State Department of
Financial Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
— DBTCA is financially backed by Deutsche Bank and audited regularly

If you care to take a look it can be found here