5 ms·

I feel like you didn't read that well, or missed the original issue in OP's article. The Tax Policy article is describing two legal ways that a store can be in

by SamBam 4y ago

I feel like you didn't read that well, or missed the original issue in OP's article. The Tax Policy article is describing two legal ways that a store can be involved in charities: 1. The business engages in a co-venture with a nonprofit charity. It dedicates a certain percentage of its sales to a charity. The company can deduct this gift in it's taxes. This cannot come out of a voluntary addition made by the customer at the POS. 2. A voluntary donation made by the customer at the POS. The business cannot count this for a deduction. The customer can deduct it (though generally won't). It makes no difference that, as you said earlier, the company "put in the effort and delivered the money." The donation is not their donation. These are two mutually-exclusive charity drives. You cannot move money from one pot to the other. The original article says that the petitioners are claiming that CVS had a legal obligation to do (1) i.e, they had engaged in a co-venture with the ADA and had pledged a certain amount of their own money, but that instead they were using money from (2), customer's voluntary contributions at the POS.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
You'll have to make up your mind about what you think the problem is. If you're worried about -- in your own words: > From a tax perspective, there's no difference if it forwards your donations and calls it their own, or makes its own donation and reimbursing itself with your donation. In both cases it doesn't lose any money and gets to illegally claim a tax deduction. Then your comments are gibberish. Write out a cash flow chart. A customer makes a $30 purchase at CVS and donates $5 to the ADA. There are two options: 1. CVS recognizes $35 of revenue, gives $5 to the ADA, and claims a $5 deduction. 2. CVS recognizes $30 of revenue, gives $5 to the ADA, and doesn't claim a deduction. These are equivalent in every way. In both cases, CVS takes $35 from the customer, gives $5 to the ADA, and recognizes an adjusted $30 of revenue. You could accuse CVS of taking $35 from the customer, giving $5 to the ADA, and recognizing $25 of revenue by taking the deduction twice - first recognizing $30 of revenue, and then claiming a double-counted $5 deduction on top of that. That would be tax fraud. It would cause no harm to the ADA; they get the same amount of money either way. I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying. But it is the only interpretation that would make your discussion of "illegal deductions" make any sense. But there is another theory of what the problem might be. You could be saying that CVS promised to give the ADA a certain amount of money, and then did. Again, I'm not sure why that is supposed to be bad. This is what I've been talking about up above - in every other circumstance, if you go out and drum up money for a cause, you get credit for the production of that money. This is due to the obvious fact that you produced the money.
- SamBam 4y ago
  I'm confused that you find this confusing. Read the Tax Policy article again, and make sure you understand that is talking about two separate options: > there are two ways charities can benefit from point-of-sale donations. The first is where the store donates a share of its sales. That type of donation is deductible by the business but not by its customers. The second way is where customers add something to their bill at the register with the extra amount going to charity. Customers can claim those amounts donated as deductions on their individual income tax return, In your head these options count as the same thing. If they did, there wouldn't be an article on how the two separate options work. Here's one way that can be really clear: if a customer donates at a POS, and itemized their deductions, as they are legally allowed to do, and the company also claimed the tax benefit then that same $10 credit is being claimed by two different people. This is clearly not legal. That alone should convince you that a store cannot claim a POS donation as their own donation. You can't just say "These are equivalent in every way" and just make it so. The point of the lawsuit is that CVS had a legal obligation to donate their own money. Money donated at a POS is legally the customer's donation. They can't both claim it. And, to be clear, no one but you is confused that that would be illegal. The question that the lawsuit will settle is whether CVS was using POS donation in this way, not whether that would have been legal. > in every other circumstance, if you go out and drum up money for a cause, you get credit for the production of that money. What are you talking about? Moral credit or legal credit? Because legally, no, that's 100% wrong. If I host a charity dinner, I do all the work, I get my rich friends to come, I get them to open their wallets and donate thousands to my cause, no, I very much do not get to claim legal credit for their donations. If you're trying to ignore legal facts and just make moral arguments about who deserves "recognition," I'm not talking about that.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    What do you think you're talking about? Give me the cash flow chart. According to you, what is CVS accused of? > Read the Tax Policy article again, and make sure you understand You do realize the purpose of that article is to point out to people like you that you don't understand what's happening in point of sale donations? Here, the article introduces itself: > These small, easy donation opportunities are hugely important to participating non-profits and can help boost the reputations of retailers. And they can make a shopper feel good, too. But like so much else these days, these giving opportunities have become controversial, in part because some critics insist retailers are taking a tax benefit for their customers’ donations. > Watch this TikTok video of a dramatized exchange at the counter. The video’s creator plays the roles of both cashier and customer. The cashier asks the customer to “round up” his bill by 25 cents and donate the extra change to a charity. The customer refuses, believing the corporate store owner will “dodge taxes” by taking a deduction for the customer’s contribution. The video’s creator appears righteous, but he is wrong, or at least confused.

by SamBam 4y ago

thaumasiotes 4y ago

You'll have to make up your mind about what you think the problem is. If you're worried about -- in your own words: > From a tax perspective, there's no difference if it forwards your donations and calls it their own, or makes its own donation and reimbursing itself with your donation. In both cases it doesn't lose any money and gets to illegally claim a tax deduction. Then your comments are gibberish. Write out a cash flow chart. A customer makes a $30 purchase at CVS and donates $5 to the ADA. There are two options: 1. CVS recognizes $35 of revenue, gives $5 to the ADA, and claims a $5 deduction. 2. CVS recognizes $30 of revenue, gives $5 to the ADA, and doesn't claim a deduction. These are equivalent in every way. In both cases, CVS takes $35 from the customer, gives $5 to the ADA, and recognizes an adjusted $30 of revenue. You could accuse CVS of taking $35 from the customer, giving $5 to the ADA, and recognizing $25 of revenue by taking the deduction twice - first recognizing $30 of revenue, and then claiming a double-counted $5 deduction on top of that. That would be tax fraud. It would cause no harm to the ADA; they get the same amount of money either way. I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying. But it is the only interpretation that would make your discussion of "illegal deductions" make any sense. But there is another theory of what the problem might be. You could be saying that CVS promised to give the ADA a certain amount of money, and then did. Again, I'm not sure why that is supposed to be bad. This is what I've been talking about up above - in every other circumstance, if you go out and drum up money for a cause, you get credit for the production of that money. This is due to the obvious fact that you produced the money.

SamBam 4y ago
I'm confused that you find this confusing. Read the Tax Policy article again, and make sure you understand that is talking about two separate options: > there are two ways charities can benefit from point-of-sale donations. The first is where the store donates a share of its sales. That type of donation is deductible by the business but not by its customers. The second way is where customers add something to their bill at the register with the extra amount going to charity. Customers can claim those amounts donated as deductions on their individual income tax return, In your head these options count as the same thing. If they did, there wouldn't be an article on how the two separate options work. Here's one way that can be really clear: if a customer donates at a POS, and itemized their deductions, as they are legally allowed to do, and the company also claimed the tax benefit then that same $10 credit is being claimed by two different people. This is clearly not legal. That alone should convince you that a store cannot claim a POS donation as their own donation. You can't just say "These are equivalent in every way" and just make it so. The point of the lawsuit is that CVS had a legal obligation to donate their own money. Money donated at a POS is legally the customer's donation. They can't both claim it. And, to be clear, no one but you is confused that that would be illegal. The question that the lawsuit will settle is whether CVS was using POS donation in this way, not whether that would have been legal. > in every other circumstance, if you go out and drum up money for a cause, you get credit for the production of that money. What are you talking about? Moral credit or legal credit? Because legally, no, that's 100% wrong. If I host a charity dinner, I do all the work, I get my rich friends to come, I get them to open their wallets and donate thousands to my cause, no, I very much do not get to claim legal credit for their donations. If you're trying to ignore legal facts and just make moral arguments about who deserves "recognition," I'm not talking about that.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  What do you think you're talking about? Give me the cash flow chart. According to you, what is CVS accused of? > Read the Tax Policy article again, and make sure you understand You do realize the purpose of that article is to point out to people like you that you don't understand what's happening in point of sale donations? Here, the article introduces itself: > These small, easy donation opportunities are hugely important to participating non-profits and can help boost the reputations of retailers. And they can make a shopper feel good, too. But like so much else these days, these giving opportunities have become controversial, in part because some critics insist retailers are taking a tax benefit for their customers’ donations. > Watch this TikTok video of a dramatized exchange at the counter. The video’s creator plays the roles of both cashier and customer. The cashier asks the customer to “round up” his bill by 25 cents and donate the extra change to a charity. The customer refuses, believing the corporate store owner will “dodge taxes” by taking a deduction for the customer’s contribution. The video’s creator appears righteous, but he is wrong, or at least confused.