PDA

View Full Version : Nicolas Cage: Gift Tax



Lohan2008
26th June 2011, 02:17 AM
Nicolas Cage owes almost US$630,000 to the US Internal Revenue Service for unpaid taxes on gifts between 2004 and 2009. US federal tax laws require that the gift giver pay a 35 percent tax on all large gifts.

That is a 1.8 Million donation for you maths wizz :pixiedust:

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/pf/taxtime/173484/celebrities-with-tax-problems.slideshow

freethinker
26th June 2011, 02:35 AM
The insanity of this is the tax law.
Nicolas Cage owes almost US$630,000 to the US Internal Revenue Service for unpaid taxes on gifts between 2004 and 2009. US federal tax laws require that the gift giver pay a 35 percent tax on all large gifts.

That is a 1.8 Million donation for you maths wizz :pixiedust:

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/pf/taxtime/173484/celebrities-with-tax-problems.slideshow

25yearsoutfree@last
26th June 2011, 07:14 AM
Are you saying that Nicolas Cage is a Scientologist? Did he "give" Scientology $630grand?:nervous:

25yearsoutfree@last
26th June 2011, 07:15 AM
I mean, are you saying that Nicolas Cage is a Scientologist and gave 1.8 mill to Scn? :nervous:

GoNuclear
26th June 2011, 10:18 AM
Nicolas Cage owes almost US$630,000 to the US Internal Revenue Service for unpaid taxes on gifts between 2004 and 2009. US federal tax laws require that the gift giver pay a 35 percent tax on all large gifts.

That is a 1.8 Million donation for you maths wizz :pixiedust:

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/pf/taxtime/173484/celebrities-with-tax-problems.slideshow

Of course, the Infernal Revenue Swindlers will never come clean regarding exactly how liability is actually incurred for such a tax. No liability is incurred without the use of a taxpayer ID number, such as a socialist slavestate number. No such number is required in 99% of all cases ... the laws are written one way but enforced in another way, and usually not by govt. but rather by people in the private sector who forget to read the legal definitions in the codes and apply dictionary definitions to specifically defined legal terms.

The tax laws are not upgaphugged in and of themselves, but they are written in such fashion as to give the public the maximum possible opportunity to make mistakes in favor of the govt. via the mechanism I spelled out above. The answer is legislation that would require a full plain language disclosure anytime anyone anywhere for any reason asks for a socialist slavestate number.

Pete

guanoloco
26th June 2011, 03:52 PM
This law penalizes giving and gifts.

In addition, it's a double whammy because said gifts have already been taxed.

I earn money or purchase something and those things are taxed. I then gift them to someone and I have to pay taxes AGAIN!

To answer Pete, was once told that laws and law language became unnecessarily complex from the medieval times. As this story goes, back then scribes were paid per letter and were the recorders of laws. The incentive then was to have or contrive as many letters as one can to convey a meaning. Law comes down and they record it but gave it the old scribe-translation thereby beefing up their coffers. Don't know if it's true but, hey, makes sense...

GoNuclear
26th June 2011, 04:13 PM
This law penalizes giving and gifts.

In addition, it's a double whammy because said gifts have already been taxed.

I earn money or purchase something and those things are taxed. I then gift them to someone and I have to pay taxes AGAIN!

...


Have you ever actually read that so-called "law?" No? There are two versions of that law ... the "as written" and "everybody knows" version. "Everybody knows" because nobody reads. Bottom line ... no taxpayer ID number, no tax liability is incurred. If there is a situation where a taxpayer ID number is actually REQUIRED, there is someone insisting upon it, believe me. The problem is people insisting where none is required. But just transferring money from one person to another? No taxpayer ID number is required. If there is one being insisted upon where none is required by law, there are work-arounds using various corporate entities as proxies. Regardless, no need to ever be stuck with a tax bill like that.

Pete

Rene Descartes
27th June 2011, 02:22 PM
Perhaps he gifted some of his higher valued comics to someone.

Rd00

BC1
30th June 2011, 05:21 PM
The law is a good one, it is meant to prevent rich families from transferring large sums of money to people, such as their children and amassing a huge fortune that carries forward for generations. It was to prevent the issue that early Americans didn't like about England where there was such a split between the haves and have-not's of the country. Similar to the estate tax. A person is allowed to give away up to $1,000,000 in their lifetime prior to that law kicking in and anyone can give another person up to $13K per year without any tax impact ($13K per person to as many people as they wish) and without it counting towards the lifetime $1M amount. So most people would never be affected by this law. It's just meant to stop people from hoarding cash within their family. Before anyone yells "liberal" at me let me say I am a Republican usually, although currently all the Republican candidates are terrible in my opinion. And no I will never back Sarah Palin, she is an insult to women.

Dulloldfart
1st July 2011, 12:51 AM
The law is a good one, it is meant to prevent rich families from transferring large sums of money to people, such as their children and amassing a huge fortune that carries forward for generations.

Oh, so that's why famous families like the Rothschilds don't have much money. Thanks very much.

Paul

freethinker
1st July 2011, 12:56 AM
Look up Trust law. It's how all these taxes are avoided.
The law is a good one, it is meant to prevent rich families from transferring large sums of money to people, such as their children and amassing a huge fortune that carries forward for generations. It was to prevent the issue that early Americans didn't like about England where there was such a split between the haves and have-not's of the country. Similar to the estate tax. A person is allowed to give away up to $1,000,000 in their lifetime prior to that law kicking in and anyone can give another person up to $13K per year without any tax impact ($13K per person to as many people as they wish) and without it counting towards the lifetime $1M amount. So most people would never be affected by this law. It's just meant to stop people from hoarding cash within their family. Before anyone yells "liberal" at me let me say I am a Republican usually, although currently all the Republican candidates are terrible in my opinion. And no I will never back Sarah Palin, she is an insult to women.

oneonewasaracecar
6th July 2011, 11:56 PM
Are you saying that Nicolas Cage is a Scientologist? Did he "give" Scientology $630grand?:nervous:
Nick was married to Lisa Marie Presley. I remember reading about him being on celebrity Scientology lists very early on in the internet, but now all reference to Nick Cage and Scientology have been removed. More than likely he did a course or two and wasn't interested.

from wiki

...Her relationship with Cage was on-again/off-again from the beginning...He filed for divorce after 108 days of marriage, on November 25, 2002. The divorce was finalized on May 26, 2004. The divorce proceeding lasted longer than the marriage.
Don't think he was ever really 'in.'

I would love to hear further from someone who has inside info on this.

smartone
7th July 2011, 12:03 AM
Nicolas Cage owes almost US$630,000 to the US Internal Revenue Service for unpaid taxes on gifts between 2004 and 2009. US federal tax laws require that the gift giver pay a 35 percent tax on all large gifts.

That is a 1.8 Million donation for you maths wizz :pixiedust:

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/pf/taxtime/173484/celebrities-with-tax-problems.slideshow



I wonder if the darling Inland Revenue over here will start doing the same thing :omg:

Winston Smith
7th July 2011, 01:46 AM
The law is a good one, it is meant to prevent rich families from transferring large sums of money to people, such as their children and amassing a huge fortune that carries forward for generations. It was to prevent the issue that early Americans didn't like about England where there was such a split between the haves and have-not's of the country. Similar to the estate tax. A person is allowed to give away up to $1,000,000 in their lifetime prior to that law kicking in and anyone can give another person up to $13K per year without any tax impact ($13K per person to as many people as they wish) and without it counting towards the lifetime $1M amount. .

I have given under these laws. First, a married couple can give $26K a year to whomever they wish. A few years ago the press tried to pin a pol with giving friends $96K when the limit was $12K per spouse, ie $96K for husband and wife over 4 years.(in this case) It was completely legal, but the jackass press tried to make it a horrible crime.

Trusts protect the very wealthy. Through them they transfer millions upon millions to their heirs. Don't think for a minute that the DuPont, Carnegie, Mellon, Vanderbilt, Kluge, Ford and hundreds of other families have not protected their wealth. Kennedys are a prime example of wealth preservation through law shepherded through congress by Teddy. (Marathon Oil pays far less in fed taxes due to his legislation, company largely owned by the Kennedys).

As I write, estates are exempted from estate tax if they are under $5 million. That amount has gone steadily up over the past many years. That very fact has lead some wealthy to re-evaluate their estate planning.

I SUBMIT TO YOU: Why in hell should Uncle Sam confiscate estates earned over a lifetime because it does not think heirs (or others) don't "deserve" it? The government sure as hell doesn't deserve it. Has no control over its own spending and presumes to be an arbiter of others' spending? I for one am a bit weary of the US Government telling me how to live my own life. If it were responsible in fiscal matters maybe they would have a moral ground to stand on, but with the mess they have created for my children I would just as soon try to protect them from what is coming down the pike.

freethinker
7th July 2011, 02:58 AM
Why is it called the Inland Revenue?
I wonder if the darling Inland Revenue over here will start doing the same thing :omg:

guanoloco
7th July 2011, 03:23 AM
- SNIP -

I SUBMIT TO YOU: Why in hell should Uncle Sam confiscate estates earned over a lifetime because it does not think heirs (or others) don't "deserve" it? The government sure as hell doesn't deserve it. Has no control over its own spending and presumes to be an arbiter of others' spending? I for one am a bit weary of the US Government telling me how to live my own life. If it were responsible in fiscal matters maybe they would have a moral ground to stand on, but with the mess they have created for my children I would just as soon try to protect them from what is coming down the pike.

Winston,

It's to curb inflation. Anywhere there's a stockpile of cash or reserves inflation surfaces with a fiat currency. These have to be taxed, and heavily so, in order to maintain the value of the dollar...only reason both members of the household have to work is to buoy up the dollar's loss of value due to inflation.

Winston Smith
7th July 2011, 12:41 PM
Winston,

It's to curb inflation. Anywhere there's a stockpile of cash or reserves inflation surfaces with a fiat currency. These have to be taxed, and heavily so, in order to maintain the value of the dollar...only reason both members of the household have to work is to buoy up the dollar's loss of value due to inflation.

This is one post I do not understand. Inflation is created by the US Government when it prints paper money just willy-nilly because it wants to foist its spending desires on the people. So you are trying to say money privately held causes inflation. That is a new one on me. I would submit that government spending causes inflation. Witness Greece, where most of the population gets cash from the government.

I would like to see a study linking privately held currency to inflation. Don't know if one exists, but my thought is that is no where near the threat to solvency that a $14 trillion public debt is. "They" could confiscate all wealth of "the rich" and not pay that off.

Lohan2008
7th July 2011, 08:54 PM
I am sorry that I started this thread that lead to a useless discussion about the "evils" of the usa tax system. I thought it was interesting that NC got hit with the tax when he could have used a third source to avoid the IRS.

Winston Smith
7th July 2011, 09:26 PM
I am sorry that I started this thread that lead to a useless discussion about the "evils" of the usa tax system. I thought it was interesting that NC got hit with the tax when he could have used a third source to avoid the IRS.

Sorry to derail. Yes, Nick could have avoided this in any number of ways. That is why they pay tax accountants/attorneys. I promise to shut my typing fingers down on this subject.

smartone
10th July 2011, 01:12 AM
Why is it called the Inland Revenue?

It's the quirky name we give those people who take our taxes in the UK.

freethinker
10th July 2011, 01:16 AM
Is that the actual name or the pet name?
It's the quirky name we give those people who take our taxes in the UK.

guanoloco
10th July 2011, 09:11 PM
The law is a good one, it is meant to prevent rich families from transferring large sums of money to people, such as their children and amassing a huge fortune that carries forward for generations. It was to prevent the issue that early Americans didn't like about England where there was such a split between the haves and have-not's of the country. Similar to the estate tax. A person is allowed to give away up to $1,000,000 in their lifetime prior to that law kicking in and anyone can give another person up to $13K per year without any tax impact ($13K per person to as many people as they wish) and without it counting towards the lifetime $1M amount. So most people would never be affected by this law. It's just meant to stop people from hoarding cash within their family. Before anyone yells "liberal" at me let me say I am a Republican usually, although currently all the Republican candidates are terrible in my opinion. And no I will never back Sarah Palin, she is an insult to women.

Why would this bequething be a bad thing?

Why would this lead to a split between haves and have-nots?