IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate

IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate

January 12, 2009

If you're running a virtual goods business in, say, Second Life, you may soon find yourself on the radar of the Internal Revenue Service.

The Washington Post reports that Nina Olson, who serves as the U.S. Taxpayer Advocate, has recommended to the IRS that it take a closer look at the exchange of virtual goods in online worlds, which she estimates at $1 billion annually. From the WaPo:

[Olson] told the agency that it should "proactively address emerging issues such as those arising from virtual worlds." Her report said that about $1 billion in real dollars changed hands in computer-based environments during 2005. Additionally, more than 16 million people are said to have active subscriptions in these worlds, "many of which have their own virtual economies and currencies."

But Olson said the IRS hasn't effectively been able to respond to taxpayer inquiries about how to report transactions associated with them. "Economic activities in virtual worlds may present an emerging area of tax noncompliance, in part because the IRS has not provided guidance about whether and how taxpayers should report such activities," said Olson's report. She suggests that to improve voluntary tax compliance, the IRS issue guidance addressing how taxpayers should report economic activities in virtual worlds.

GP: It's not entirely clear what Olson expects the IRS to gain from this line of inquiry. Anyone doing substantial business in a virtual world is already obligated by law to report their earnings, just like anyone running a real-world business. If a virtual goods vendor chooses to run his or her business "under the table," it would seem that they place themselves in legal peril.

UPDATE: New World Notes has a thoughtful analysis of how the IRS might look at the tax implications of Second Life transactions.

Via: Kotaku

Posted in

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by Lost Question - January 12, 2009 at 7:48 am -0500

maybe she wants a tax on WoW gold (silver and copper) and MS messo. Or wants the irs to attempt calling all virtual worlds part of the united states.

but im with you gp i actually have no clue why she's driveing at

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by Cavalier - January 12, 2009 at 5:01 pm -0500

If the IRS seriously wants to start taxing raid loot, they're going to get some very interesting calls about the quality of leadership and co-workers.

Seriously though, this looks a lot more like it's aimed at say, Second Life merchants, that kind of thing.

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by Alex - January 12, 2009 at 8:07 am -0500

They may be obligated to report their taxes, but assuming that what she said in the block you quoted is true, it sounds like the problem (or at least part of it) is that many people don't know how to report the money they earn from virtual-world transactions, and the IRS hasn't provided effective guidance on that point.
---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by Nekowolf - January 12, 2009 at 8:28 am -0500

Or...how's this for an idea. This is pretty fucking radical, too.

How about using tax money, on stuff that isn't bullshit. More money to go around then. I'd go even further, but I don't feel like getting into it. Cause apparently, there's some bullshit excuse that Socialism always means Communism.

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by DeepThorn - January 12, 2009 at 8:41 am -0500

Wow, this idiot doesn't understand current tax laws...  Granted, I only know a little bit due to still being in the first year of running a business, but how to run a business for dumbasses 101 says if you make any kind of money period, you are to report it.  No matter if it is a good or service, even though you can not donate services to non-profits, which I think is BS, but hey.  I understand that there are some dirty bastards that would take advantage of that, just like many big businesses take advantage of tax deductions, which is also BS when those deductions are to help a company grow, not pay the CEO and other execs more.

I think everyone has a couple laws that they think are stupid or unfair, but that is life.  No government is perfect because no person is perfect, especially in a government so heavily based off of religion...

Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by Neeneko - January 12, 2009 at 9:56 am -0500

This sounds like another case of 'rather then enforce existing laws, let's make new ones and take credit for solving the problem!'.

New laws get the new people credit, enforcing old laws gives credit to the earlier lawmakers.  Guess which is more advantagous to a politition?

 

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by Awol - January 12, 2009 at 10:20 am -0500

Can I pay my taxes in virtual money as well? If so that would great cause its easy to make virtual money in Second Life.

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by Ryno - January 12, 2009 at 11:34 am -0500

Wait a minute: she's the TAXPAYERS' ADVOCATE, and she wants to find new ways to tax the payers? Shouldn't her job be to, I don't know, ADVOCATE on their behalf?

I can get behind making it clearer how and when people should report earnings so that they don't get caught with an audit, but finding new ways to tax people seems contrary to her title.

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by axiomatic - January 12, 2009 at 11:56 am -0500

"Tax Advocate"? That is similar to "Root canal advocate" or possibly "Cancer advocate"?

I'm sure she gets all the boys.

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by Derovius - January 12, 2009 at 3:22 pm -0500

 From the looks of that picture, she is a lesbian. A lonely, single tax-advocate lesbian.

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by silversnowfox - January 12, 2009 at 6:01 pm -0500

The simple fact is that the IRS wouldn't have jurisdiction.  Second Life (or anything else) may have servers in the US, but it exists on the internet.  A place that is, and I quote, "No where, and Everywhere."  As such, something of this nature, would require a world wide tax organization.

Also, I have to agree with Cavalier, the calls from WoW players would be quite interesting.  IRS could sell the tapes of conversations for profit.

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by Derovius - January 12, 2009 at 6:26 pm -0500

 They could claim jurisdiction over US servers, ala the DRM enforcement methodology. And WoW players wouldn't be all that stranger than what they get now. Just off the top of my head, I'm sure legalized prostitution needs to declare all sex toys as business assets... and to use the former as a pun, other "assets" as well.

Re: IRS Should Look Into Taxing Virtual Goods, Says Tax Advocate
Submitted by Wolvenmoon - January 12, 2009 at 7:51 pm -0500

Or the IRS could stop looking at taxing consumers and individuals ( 306 million based on the latest survey I could find) and levy all taxes onto businesses that employ a large number of individuals at the payroll level, and not tax consumers directly one bit, thus dropping the number of people they have to keep up with from 306 million to ~6 million (businesses that employ others) (20 million including small businesses)

It would save us annually at least a billion, and the IRS wouldn't have to chase after as many people. Right now businesses have to pay so many different taxes on so many different things, too, holding it at the payroll level (flat federal tax of x%, then a state tax that the states decide).

Of course, we'd have to keep import/export fees, but that's handled at the business level too.

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 03:20pm
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:18pm
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:14pm
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:13pm
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:09pm
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:07pm
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Login or register to post shouts