7 ms·

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

by 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.
- SamBam 4y ago
  > According to you, what is CVS accused of? If you can't be bothered to read my comments, or the original article, what are you arguing for? I've answered that question twice, in sentences starting with: "The original article says that the petitioners are claiming that ..." "The point of the lawsuit is that ..." Are you actually claiming that the lawsuit is frivolous? Because I think you've been arguing about something inside your head this whole time, while I try to keep coming back to the facts in the lawsuit, and the legal definitions of donations, neither of which you seem to care to understand. You just keep making vague moral arguments about who should get "credit" for a donation.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    If you believe that the point of the lawsuit is that CVS had an obligation to donate money that didn't come from their customers... then all your comments about illegal tax deductions are nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. I keep asking you to describe what you think is wrong, because you have no idea what you're talking about. And you keep refusing, presumably because you're not able to give such a description. But I'll try a completely different line of attack: an illegal tax deduction would be fraud, and the victim would be the IRS. It isn't possible, under the American legal system, for civilians to sue over an offense of that kind. But this is a lawsuit by a civilian seeking to become a class representative. He alleges that CVS has committed fraud against its customers. As he must, since it isn't possible for him to sue CVS for tax fraud. No one on any side has alleged any problem with CVS's taxes. Why do you believe there's a problem with them?
    - SamBam 4y ago
      The claim is that: 1. CVS made a legally binding that CVS would donate $10 million to the ADA during the three year period of 2021 through 2023 2. CVS instead took the customer's own donations and used them to fulfill its own obligations. The purpose of discussing tax law is that you seem incapable of understanding that a company's own donation and a pass-through donation are two different things. They legally come from two different entities, and for good reason. If the company pledged to donate its own money, and instead it "donated" its customer's own donations, this is not the same thing. The claimed harm to the customer is that CVS had already pledged $10 million of its own money to ADA, so this money was already going to them, and the "donation" is therefore equivalent to a reimbursement to CVS itself, not additional money that helps the ADA. Clearly the customer desired to give money to the ADA, not to CVS. The ADA gets not a single penny more money from each donation if CVS only hands over the $10 million it had already pledged of its own money. > an illegal tax deduction Again, this is showing that you are unwilling to read my comments. I have not once described the issue as being a tax issue. I said "From a tax perspective" in a parenthetical in my very first comment, to show an example of how, legally, direction donations and pass-through donations are different, but said right away that "this particular case is about a legal obligation, not a tax credit." I've also referenced Tax Policy Center to, again, highlight how direct donations and pass-through donations are legally different. You are the one who has gone on and on about taxes even though this case is not about that.

by SamBam 4y ago

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.

SamBam 4y ago
> According to you, what is CVS accused of? If you can't be bothered to read my comments, or the original article, what are you arguing for? I've answered that question twice, in sentences starting with: "The original article says that the petitioners are claiming that ..." "The point of the lawsuit is that ..." Are you actually claiming that the lawsuit is frivolous? Because I think you've been arguing about something inside your head this whole time, while I try to keep coming back to the facts in the lawsuit, and the legal definitions of donations, neither of which you seem to care to understand. You just keep making vague moral arguments about who should get "credit" for a donation.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  If you believe that the point of the lawsuit is that CVS had an obligation to donate money that didn't come from their customers... then all your comments about illegal tax deductions are nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. I keep asking you to describe what you think is wrong, because you have no idea what you're talking about. And you keep refusing, presumably because you're not able to give such a description. But I'll try a completely different line of attack: an illegal tax deduction would be fraud, and the victim would be the IRS. It isn't possible, under the American legal system, for civilians to sue over an offense of that kind. But this is a lawsuit by a civilian seeking to become a class representative. He alleges that CVS has committed fraud against its customers. As he must, since it isn't possible for him to sue CVS for tax fraud. No one on any side has alleged any problem with CVS's taxes. Why do you believe there's a problem with them?
  - SamBam 4y ago
    The claim is that: 1. CVS made a legally binding that CVS would donate $10 million to the ADA during the three year period of 2021 through 2023 2. CVS instead took the customer's own donations and used them to fulfill its own obligations. The purpose of discussing tax law is that you seem incapable of understanding that a company's own donation and a pass-through donation are two different things. They legally come from two different entities, and for good reason. If the company pledged to donate its own money, and instead it "donated" its customer's own donations, this is not the same thing. The claimed harm to the customer is that CVS had already pledged $10 million of its own money to ADA, so this money was already going to them, and the "donation" is therefore equivalent to a reimbursement to CVS itself, not additional money that helps the ADA. Clearly the customer desired to give money to the ADA, not to CVS. The ADA gets not a single penny more money from each donation if CVS only hands over the $10 million it had already pledged of its own money. > an illegal tax deduction Again, this is showing that you are unwilling to read my comments. I have not once described the issue as being a tax issue. I said "From a tax perspective" in a parenthetical in my very first comment, to show an example of how, legally, direction donations and pass-through donations are different, but said right away that "this particular case is about a legal obligation, not a tax credit." I've also referenced Tax Policy Center to, again, highlight how direct donations and pass-through donations are legally different. You are the one who has gone on and on about taxes even though this case is not about that.