The issue … is the interpretation of a restriction on the “no tax on tips” deduction passed as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act that says that tips earned for prostitution or “pornographic activity” are not eligible.
The 3rd paragraph goes on to explain:
The legislation didn’t offer much additional guidance, and the IRS has yet to issue any statements clarifying what exactly constitutes “pornographic activity,” leaving the taxing agency in a similar boat as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when he endeavored to define “obscenity” in the 1964 case of Jacobellis v. Ohio: “I know it when I see it.”
Having never used OF, I assumed it was a pay to access content model, I guess they additionally allow tipping, which isn't a surprise, I assume there's also a pay for specific content creation model. But what I don't know is if the tipping, while linked to a creator, is linked to a specific piece of content. If it isn't, wouldn't a creator with any amount of mixed content be hard to evaluate? You couldn't prove the tipping was related to an excluded category in that case.
OnlyFans has steadfastly maintained that it is not explicitly a pornographic site. I imagine if a ruling went out that every tipped interaction on the site was considered pornography, they would step in on behalf of the content creators to try to whittle that down to case-by-case rulings, for no other reason than PR alone.
Tipping into the silly now…
I can’t wait until someone issues a FOIA for the deliberations over whether certain things are pornographic or not.
Hell yes this what the Internal Revenue Service is for. Micro managing people trying to sell images of their bodies and not the Billionaires selling images of other's bodies, marketing and stuff. Let's use are resources to investigate the rain drop and not the fucking hurricane good job agents! /s
29 Comments
TheBat@lemmy.world · 53 pts · 296d
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 296d
Next headline: "IRS Agents receive scrutiny for buying an excess of facial tissues."
lemmyng@piefed.ca · 11 pts · 296d
The large drums of lotion however didn't raise any suspicion.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 296d
It's winter, the air is dry.
burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 295d
That reminds me that I actually do need to go get more lotion.
Mongostein@lemmy.ca · 29 pts · 296d
lol sure
Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 296d
Sweet gig if you can get it.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com · 17 pts · 296d
For some professional reason, though, right? Uh, just because!
dohpaz42@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 296d
2nd paragraph:
The 3rd paragraph goes on to explain:
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com · 17 pts · 296d
Just because. 😎
phaedrus@piefed.world · 4 pts · 296d
Oh come on, it's just the tip!
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 296d
Party of governmental efficiency!
pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 296d
Now I know what (who) Big Beautiful Bill was referencing
pheonixdown@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 296d
Having never used OF, I assumed it was a pay to access content model, I guess they additionally allow tipping, which isn't a surprise, I assume there's also a pay for specific content creation model. But what I don't know is if the tipping, while linked to a creator, is linked to a specific piece of content. If it isn't, wouldn't a creator with any amount of mixed content be hard to evaluate? You couldn't prove the tipping was related to an excluded category in that case.
jacksilver@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 296d
Almost like the "Big Beautiful Bill's" language wasn't very well thought out.
I mean, why exclude this random subsection of work in the first place.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 296d
Yes, you can tip on individual posts.
Monument@lemmy.sdf.org · 6 pts · 296d
OnlyFans has steadfastly maintained that it is not explicitly a pornographic site. I imagine if a ruling went out that every tipped interaction on the site was considered pornography, they would step in on behalf of the content creators to try to whittle that down to case-by-case rulings, for no other reason than PR alone.
Tipping into the silly now…
I can’t wait until someone issues a FOIA for the deliberations over whether certain things are pornographic or not.
shalafi@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 296d
Remember when OF banned porn in 2021? 😆
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 296d
That lasted longer than I thought it would. It took what, a week for them to cave?
kyonshi@piefed.social · 15 pts · 296d
That might take some time. And a lot of agents. To... you know... review footage. A few times a day maybe.
caboose2006@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 295d
How do I apply to the IRS? HOW DO I APPLY TO THE IRS?!
caboose2006@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 295d
https://jobs.irs.gov/
Got it!
CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 294d
Do I have to be a U.S. citizen?
caboose2006@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 293d
You have to be eligible to work in the US.
Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 295d
Wild to see my hard-earned tax money's going to people who are paid to watch porn.
yarr@feddit.nl · 10 pts · 296d
Hell, I'll do this for free.
Aneb@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 296d
Hell yes this what the Internal Revenue Service is for. Micro managing people trying to sell images of their bodies and not the Billionaires selling images of other's bodies, marketing and stuff. Let's use are resources to investigate the rain drop and not the fucking hurricane good job agents! /s
huquad@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 296d
Yeah boss, I'm gonna need to expense these tissues and this gallon of lotion.
ICastFist@programming.dev · 8 pts · 296d
I bet the boss of those agents will be all too happy to walk back and forth between cubicles. You know, for moral support
Ziglin@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 296d
But the 'm' is silent? (I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere)