The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Financial Planning / Tax Strategies

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/quotthe-issue-is-entirely-about-answering-the-20735027.aspx

Subject:  Re: sole proprietorship & deductions Date:  5/6/2004  1:56 PM
Author:  Littlechap Number:  71754 of 121147

"the issue is entirely about answering the question asked.

Yep. But that's not what you're doing at all. Proof follows below. Meanwhile, Gabe could find many of his questions answered on the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99065,00.html

If you had so much to say, why didn't you reply to the man directly? You sat around silently, then pounced on an innocent respondent with inexcusable hostility, inaccurate information, and a pretense of disagreement that does not even exist. What's wrong with you?

I said "What the IRS cares about is that they can match up the entity identified on the Schedule C with the entity on the 1040." This applies to Gabe's case, in which there's only one Schedule C to worry about. But you want to argue. So contrary to your claim that you are "answering the question asked" you go off-topic and answer a question he did NOT ask! And your reply is incomplete at best:

The DBA is included only to help distinguish between multiple Schedule C's.

The DBA is most likely present for other reasons I won't go into here. As for the distinction between one schedule C and another, it would be far less dependent on the name than on section A, which asks for the nature of the business, and Section B, that asks for the Business Code.

Read the IRS instructions for Schedule C, section A:

...If you owned more than one business, you must complete a separate Schedule C for each business. Give the general field or activity and the type of product or service...

and section B:

These codes for the Principal Business or Professional Activity classify sole proprietorships by the type of activity they are engaged in to facilitate the administration of the Internal Revenue Code.

Just changing the DBA from one Sched C to the next would not prove to the IRS that you were actually conducting multiple different types of business. These other lines would be far more useful. But none of this applies to Gabe, so as I said, you've taken the thread off-topic.

you can have multiple sole proprietorships using the same EIN. If you don't believe me, read the instructions for Form SS-4.

Good grief, you're arguing with yourself. This is really far afield and has nothing to do with anything anybody else said, including me.

You seem to be implying that the IRS has some control over the name you do business under. The choice of business name comes first.

There is not one word in anything I said that states causality or a temporal relationship between the person's choice of name and anything else. You must be living your own private Star Trek episode.

All the IRS wants is that the name you list on Schedule C match the one you've already chosen to do business under.

This is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. Three messages back I said "The only other thing I'd look at is whether the change from one year to the next gets undue attention from the IRS"

This pointless argumentation gets worse. You go on about a hypothetical situation in which the guy uses "The Motley Fool" as a DBA, and how the Gardners would care more than the IRS. Again, this is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

"In my opinion, the only purpose and value for a sole proprietor to register a "fictitous name" (I assume that's what you mean by DBA) is for the sake of branding... I'd want to control the use of that name in all the places that mattered, because brand identity can be dissipated so easily... Trademarking is a lot easier if you have established this identity as being associated more with you than with some other person or entity."

Obviously, I already addressed the issue of intellectual property. All you are doing now is paraphrasing me, while claiming to disagree.

Please stop confusing taxes and law. The original question was "do I have to register my DBA in a new state?", not how will I complete my tax return. My answer (above) addressed the legal issue. I ignored the tax issue entirely.

Please stop confusing your obnoxious and confused argumentation with text that has any purpose being interjected into a polite conversation.

It was the original poster who confused the tax issues and the legal issues, but he did so innocently. I tried to helpfully address his questions in the way he asked them, rather than lecturing or talking down. You were nowhere to be found. You did not help the guy at all.

And in two messages, in almost every regard, you have supported, echoed, or paraphrased the very same things I said -- yet you think you're correcting me, and you say so in very condescending and demeaning terms.

I suggest that you review the Motley Fool Terms of Service regarding the civil tone and atmosphere that they prefer to maintain here.
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us