4 ms·

I say let the IRS put any value they want on it, but then give the owner an option to sell it to the IRS at that price that the IRS can’t refuse.

Ensorceled 7y ago
Heck, even at a 10% discount. e.g. the IRS claims this is worth $65 million so there is an explicit offer to buy at $58.5 million and the IRS can make a bundle on the taxes and then on selling it for its "real" value.
asveikau 7y ago
If I take that to its logical conclusion: do you believe the IRS should be expected to have the funds to purchase every conceivable asset at market price?
- dannyw 7y ago
  That is a stretch, but let’s say there’s a 20% discount to account for transactional costs and risk loading. If someone is willing to take a 20% loss on “market value”, that market is not market value.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    I don't think you see my point. IRS cannot be compelled to pay 80% price on every conceivable asset. It's like telling any appraiser... Yeah you think it's worth that much? Prove it! Buy the sucker! If you did that multiple times they would go bankrupt, because sure they may be able to resell the thing if priced correctly but they need to pay for it in the first place. And to do it at the scale of IRS ... It's not a reasonable request or expectation.
    - MegaButts 7y ago
      But isn't it only a problem when there is a significant discrepancy between the market value and the IRS appraisal? Obviously the IRS doesn't have the funds to buy the entire market, but if people own something that's actually market value why would they sell it at a significant discount? Also you're taking a gamble by challenging the IRS to buy something at a discount that they won't actually call your bluff and you lose out on money. And if you're actually standing by your personal assessment over theirs, you either make money or you get to skip the tax bill. This seems like a much better balance than what we currently have.
    - ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
      As long as the IRS was given a sufficient window to pay for the item it would still work. There is no reason for them to have to pay up front. If they can't sell the asset and then return 80% of it's market value to the original owner over the course of a year, than they were probably wrong about the market value. Of course there are certain items that may take longer than a year to find the right buyer, mega yachts, specialized works of art, but if these things take years to sell and find the right buyer than their potential market value should be reduced to reflect that.
asfuoepfasdio 7y ago
That would lead to unscrupulous people at the IRS valuing their friends junk as worth millions for a kickback.

Ensorceled 7y ago

Heck, even at a 10% discount. e.g. the IRS claims this is worth $65 million so there is an explicit offer to buy at $58.5 million and the IRS can make a bundle on the taxes and then on selling it for its "real" value.

asveikau 7y ago

If I take that to its logical conclusion: do you believe the IRS should be expected to have the funds to purchase every conceivable asset at market price?

dannyw 7y ago
That is a stretch, but let’s say there’s a 20% discount to account for transactional costs and risk loading. If someone is willing to take a 20% loss on “market value”, that market is not market value.
- asveikau 7y ago
  I don't think you see my point. IRS cannot be compelled to pay 80% price on every conceivable asset. It's like telling any appraiser... Yeah you think it's worth that much? Prove it! Buy the sucker! If you did that multiple times they would go bankrupt, because sure they may be able to resell the thing if priced correctly but they need to pay for it in the first place. And to do it at the scale of IRS ... It's not a reasonable request or expectation.
  - MegaButts 7y ago
    But isn't it only a problem when there is a significant discrepancy between the market value and the IRS appraisal? Obviously the IRS doesn't have the funds to buy the entire market, but if people own something that's actually market value why would they sell it at a significant discount? Also you're taking a gamble by challenging the IRS to buy something at a discount that they won't actually call your bluff and you lose out on money. And if you're actually standing by your personal assessment over theirs, you either make money or you get to skip the tax bill. This seems like a much better balance than what we currently have.
  - ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
    As long as the IRS was given a sufficient window to pay for the item it would still work. There is no reason for them to have to pay up front. If they can't sell the asset and then return 80% of it's market value to the original owner over the course of a year, than they were probably wrong about the market value. Of course there are certain items that may take longer than a year to find the right buyer, mega yachts, specialized works of art, but if these things take years to sell and find the right buyer than their potential market value should be reduced to reflect that.

asfuoepfasdio 7y ago

That would lead to unscrupulous people at the IRS valuing their friends junk as worth millions for a kickback.