Digital BW, The Print

Duane,

I sincerely apologize if my response seemed critical of your suggestion;
that wasn’t my intention.  Your suggestion is indeed a legitimate approach,
but I’ve been audited by the IRS before, and the process was burdensome.
(Nonetheless, I won; they lost.)  I’d prefer to avoid an audit, even if I
thought I could win the case.  After all, the price isn’t that high.

And I agree, enough of this OT subject.

Harry


On 6/16/07 1:02 AM, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:
> 
> Well,of course,to each his own but one who sells things,declares the
> money earned as income, and takes the appropriate expense deductions
> is, by definition, a pro.That is recognised even by the friendly IRS
> folks. The hobbiest rules you refer to only come after too many years
> without taxable profits shown. I made the assumption that you would
> have done the right thing and declared the income.
>  It's a time honored and honorable practice of small business men to
> donate money to their favorite charitys. Where do you suppose the
> funds come from and how were they initially gained? It isn't
> particularly creative. It is just an accurate description of what
> actually happens anytime any business person gives money.
> That said,it's off topic here so enough. I'm sure your donation will
> be appreciated in whatever form.
>  
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Harry Lockwood
> <hflockwood@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Very creative, Duane.  And I think the IRS would agree to that
> during the
>> > inevitable audit.
>> > I suspect they would claim (correctly) that I¹m not a pro
> photographer, just
>> > a hobbyist looking to support my retirement activities.
>> > No, I think I¹ll simplify the process, take a (small) financial hit and
>> > avoid an audit.  And pat myself on the back for my generosity.
>> > 
>> > Harry
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 6/14/07 10:52 PM, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > Actually Harry. It wouldn't quite be a wash. You would be deducting
>>> > > all your production cost up front as a business expense on the sale as
>>> > > well as some proportion as overhead etc just as any other business
>>> > > would do on a merchandise sale. Since the transactions are totally
>>> > > independent, you would be able to treat the cash gift as just that and
>>> > > it would be fully deductible. So you would be able to,in a sense,
>>> > > double dip,perfectly legally. Your action would have the effect of
>>> > > causing Uncle Sam to help in the contribution. How's that for a bit of
>>> > > the butterfly wings/windstorm connection?
>>> > > 
>>> > > Regards
>>> > > Duane
>>> > > 
>>> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>>> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> > > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Harry
> Lockwood
>>> > > <hflockwood@> wrote:
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > The way around this is to sell at the materials cost, and then
>>> > > donate the
>>>>> > >> > proceeds.  But thatï¿1Ž2s the same as simply donating the
> collection and
>>>>> > >> > claiming the materials cost.  However, keeping the price that
> low will
>>>>> > >> > enhance the probability of sales, hence income to the arts center.
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > Thanks to everyone for your time and valuable advice.  As Tyler
>>> > > suggested, I
>>>>> > >> > should perhaps focus on generosity to the arts center, which I
> will do.
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > Harry
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > On 6/13/07 6:25 PM, "Brian Ellis" <bellis60@> wrote:
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > >  
>>>>>>> > >>> > >  


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]