Discussion:A clear, concise code section - at last!
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> General Chat --> A clear, concise code section - at last!
Actionbsns (talk|edits) said: | 21 February 2012 |
| A new client called me and as we were talking said she was on Workmen's Comp last year but didn't receive anything from the WC carrier. I was thinking that something should have been received, papers go out for everything else and especially since the government seems so hell bent for destruction to 1099 everything. So I told her to bring in her stubs so we can take a look. Then went on to check the taxability. I am still in shock, I have finally uncovered a code section that is clear, concise, brief and to the point in one sentence. It feels like the answer is from one of those old black eight balls you had as a kid.
Question: Is Workmen's Comp taxable? Answer: Sec104(a)(1) .....gross income does not include (1) amounts received under workmen's compensation acts as compensation for personal injuries or sickness. Done, finished, understood in just under five minutes. Why can't they all be this clear? | |
| 21 February 2012 | |
| Because you literally have to give an arm or a leg for it to apply. | |
| 22 February 2012 | |
| From a post in General Chat called "Vocabulary":
"How often do you hear the word "literally" precede an exaggeration? I literally hear that about 1,000 times a day. I literally scream my head off everytime." | |
| 22 February 2012 | |
| What if the recipient lied/committed fraud to get the WC? And is not caught. Still excluded? | |
Actionbsns (talk|edits) said: | 22 February 2012 |
| I literally didn't use that word, and I'm not the WC police. I'm just happy to have found a code section that is so easy to understand and that I didn't have to wade through a ton of begats and begets to finally get to the one sentence that answered the question. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 22 February 2012 |
| Does clarity mean anything? This guy named Moses brought down 10 Commandments, all quite concise and clear, but does anyone understand them? Looking at our world since that day, I doubt it. | |
Spell Czech (talk|edits) said: | 25 February 2012 |
| "...as compensation for personal injuries or sickness."
Seems to me, says the cynic, "injuries" is plural, while "sickness" is singular, so with only *one* injury, your WC could be taxable. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 25 February 2012 |
| If you have more than one sickness (sicknesses?) and are eligible for workmen's comp, there is a good chance you are dead. | |
Spell Czech (talk|edits) said: | 25 February 2012 |
| You call that - being dead - a *good* chance? I wonder what bad luck would be... | |
| 25 February 2012 | |
| it also says the $ must be received under workmen's compensation "acts", so if only one such act is the source of the claim, is the income excluded? | |
Spell Czech (talk|edits) said: | 25 February 2012 |
| And there has to be "amounts," plural - i.e., more than one *amount,* too. Who wrote this bungle of confusion? Maybe it's concise, but is it easy to interpret?
[It would be shorter - more concise, if you will - if the "s" were left off at least three of the words...] | |
Spell Czech (talk|edits) said: | 25 February 2012 |
| And "injury" is *way* shorter than "injuries"... But maybe we'd need to stick an "a" in there at a coupla places. | |
Actionbsns (talk|edits) said: | 25 February 2012 |
| In the words of my 13 year old granddaughter, you guys are just trying to kill my buzz.
Personally, I'm thinking of framing this particular reg. | |
| 25 February 2012 | |
| weren't there 15 commandments...oops... 10 | |
| 25 February 2012 | |
| All of these poor draftsmanship problems are solvable by reference to Congressional intent in Committee Reports, carefully drafted regulations, and the occasional cpourt case, as well as many other IRS administrative interpretations such as PUBs, Rev Ruls, PLRs, FSAs, CCAs, and, of course, respected professional articles, so, as far as I am concerned, that statute that Actionbsns finds clear is just fine as is. Stop the picky picking. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 29 February 2012 |
| Professor Maule has a very good entry today on "The Precision of Tax Language" and who to blame (and it is not IRS). | |
Spell Czech (talk|edits) said: | 1 March 2012 |
| "...a very good entry today...." my ass.
This article should be mandatory reading for everyone who takes advantage of the TaxAlmanac website. Absolutely mandatory reading, with compliance assured by a written examination of those who post here. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 1 March 2012 |
| Here is the nutgraf of the piece, IMO.
"One of the things that might contribute to the imprecise transposition of terminology that has negative effects is the message that I received years ago in an English literature class. It is a message that I think is being repeated throughout the years and throughout education systems. I was told, “Aside from common words such as articles and prepositions, don’t use the same word more than once, especially on the same page. Buy a thesaurus.” That might be good advice for a novelist or poet, but it is atrocious advice for those who write in technical areas. Lawyers, engineers, physicians, scientists, actuaries, accountants, and those in other technically-focused professions can create confusing and even dangerous if not fatal errors when they use different words to mean the same thing." | |
