The IRS Won't Make Taxpayers Report Taylor Swift Ticket Sales (and Other Online Transactions Over $600)
For now, at least.

The IRS will once again postpone enforcement of a new provision in the tax code that requires online sellers to report as little as $600 in annual income.
So if you sold Taylor Swift concert tickets this year, congrats: the feds won't come after you for not giving them a cut.
In a statement on Tuesday, the IRS said the decision to postpone the new rule was made "following feedback from taxpayers, tax professionals, and payment processors and to reduce taxpayer confusion." Instead, tax officials will rely on the old standard, which required taxpayers to report miscellaneous online sales only if they exceeded $20,000 in revenue or 200 transactions.
The IRS now plans to transition in stages toward the new $600 threshold, which was created by the American Rescue Plan (a bill ostensibly meant to provide pandemic relief). It plans to use a $5,000 threshold for tax year 2024.
"Taking this phased-in approach is the right thing to do for the purposes of tax administration, and it prevents unnecessary confusion," IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said in a statement.
That's a surprisingly rational decision for the IRS to make, given the potential for mass confusion about the new rules, which would require Americans to disclose transactions few people would consider being subject to IRS scrutiny. Still, the better approach would be for Congress to scrap this plan to require tax payments on mostly minuscule transactions—a plan that will undoubtedly affect low-income Americans without access to professional tax assistance more than anyone else.
"All of the problems and concerns that led the IRS to delay implementing it a year ago remain in place today, which is why it is a relief for taxpayers that it has been delayed for another year," Joe Bishop-Henchman, vice president of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, said in a statement. "While the threshold change was a law passed by Congress, every expert (including those charged with administering it) is saying that lowered threshold is unworkable."
When the American Rescue Plan was passed, Democrats argued that the lower reporting threshold for 1099-K income would generate a mere $8.4 billion over 10 years. Former tax officials went on the record at the time to say that enforcement would be difficult and costly—especially for workers who end up caught in the IRS' crosshairs.
"Workers who are under-reporting their income now will become guilty of nonpayment next year and subject to penalties and actions by the agency," Nina Olson, a former head of the IRS taxpayer advocacy office, told Roll Call as the bill was being debated in Congress, adding that an IRS collection action "can destroy a person's life."
It's great that the IRS has once again decided to postpone its efforts at destroying those lives. Unfortunately, it seems likely to try again next year.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Can SWIFT be used to purchase Swift tickets swiftly?
I Am Earning $81,100 so Far this year working 0nline and I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hours a day I've made such great m0ney.I am Genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It's' really user friendly and I'm just so happY that I found out about this...
I Worked Here ==> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
If we passed this law we should enforce it or repeal it.
I agree. This law is petty, unworkable and counterproductive, but somehow the IRS has veto power over duly enacted laws?
Never interrupt your opponent when he's making a mistake.
Never complain when a crook decides not to rob you.
But reluctantly and strategically libertarians had no choice but to support the Biden regime. The alternative? Peace and prosperity and mean tweets.
Have you forgotten just how bad Orange Man was?
How could anyone possibly have forgotten, given how often we're reminded about it?
I have, actually!
In fact... trying to recover those memories is like trying to capture a phantom... or figment of my imagination [or someone's imagination!]
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
What counts as "income" here?
If I buy a thing on eBay for $1000, and later decide I'm not going to use it and put it back on eBay and only get $950 for it, is that a $50 loss or a $950 income as the IRS will judge it?
Because I suspect the latter.
Ask ten different IRS people and you'll get ten different answers, and they'll all be wrong.
There at least used to be an accounting firm that submitted a tax situation for a "hypothetical" family to 50 accountants an 50 IRS agents each year. On average, they received 110 different numbers for that family's tax liability.
Yes, I am aware that means there were more answers than people answering.
And it's why the tax code is so many thousands of pages.
In this case, it's almost certainly NOT income, as you can prove the cost basis and the fact you sold it as a loss. There may be circumstances where you can claim the loss, too.
Ha! Try to file it as a $50 loss and let us know how it works out. :<)
The right thing to do is to eliminate the reporting requirement altogether.
I wonder what percentage of Reason readers this whole 'we won't tax you for selling your tickets, Swifties' decision is going to affect.
I'm pretty sure that they still owe taxes on their Swiftian windfalls. Income is income, and the law says you have to report it all and pay taxes on it all. Failure to do so is called tax evasion.
But they DON'T have to generate a 1099MISC.
Kill yourself bohem, you voted for this.
No one wants to risk the wrath of the Swifties.
And you can't call them ticket scalpers anymore, anyway.
It's a good thing all those extra IRS agents who were totally not hired for enforcement purposes, won't be enforcing this.
The headline is a FLAT OUT LIE. The "rule change" is about payment processors reporting total transactions in a year. Actual taxpayers have always been, and still are, required to report all "income", even if it is not reported to the IRS by 3rd parties.
Note: The $600 number, from ONE payer, triggers the requirement for a 1099. Payment processors ARE NOT payers.
"Workers who are under-reporting their income now will become guilty of nonpayment next year and subject to penalties and actions by the agency,"
No one likes taxes, and this is a stupid rule. OTOH, people who are "under-reporting their income" are cheating on their taxes and ARE guilty of non-payment.
I HOPE the IRS cracks down on these folks, and on waitresses who don't report their tips, and any other tax cheats. It might be the only way to get them to realize that the tax code we have is pretty much the worst possible way to fund the actual constitutionally authorized and necessary government actions.
Turning a blind-eye or even encouraging waitresses, et al., to cheat on their taxes is pretty much the same thing as letting shoplifters steal "a little bit".
I've been audited twice, was in the right both times and have the IRS surrender forms to prove it. But I'm here to tell you that the process is at least part of the punishment. Seeing more people subjected to this process--being subjected to it themselves--might be to key to getting them to vote for change in the right direction.
Finally, how is it that the IRS can just ignore Congress's duly-passed laws, stupid as the law may be? I guess it's the same as Homeland Security just ignoring immigration laws...I'd like to see it if Trump wins again, that he tells NLRB to ignore all those pesky laws.
Congress passes a law. In this case it falls under the IRS’s responsibility. The IRS makes rules to enforce the law. The IRS puts off enforcing the rule until they can figure out how to make the rules work.