Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6827|Texas - Bigger than France
IRS Issues Regulations on 10-Percent Tax on Tanning Services Effective July 1
 
IR-2010-73, June 11, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today issued regulations outlining the administration of a 10-percent excise tax on indoor tanning services that goes into effect on July 1.

The regulations were published today in the Federal Register.

In general, providers of indoor tanning services will collect the tax at the time the purchaser pays for the tanning services. The provider then pays over these amounts to the government, quarterly, along with IRS Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return.

The tax does not apply to phototherapy services performed by a licensed medical professional on his or her premises.  The regulations also provide an exception for certain physical fitness facilities that offer tanning as an incidental service to members without a separately identifiable fee. 

The IRS and Treasury Department invite comments.

Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-112841-10), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.

Submissions may be hand-delivered to: CC:PA:LPD:PR Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-112841-10), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

Submissions may be sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (REG-112841-10).

_______
Comments from Beck's show:



"Under new law, light-skinned people are suffering the racially disparate effects of a 10% disincentivizing tax on the carcinogenic practice of indoor tanning."

_______


Ummm, wut?

Seems like the law is targeted primarily at white women and gay white folks men since: a) 100% are light skinned, b) 75% are women, and c) the other 25% are gay

Just around the corner: you'll need to register with the government to do anything that is dangerous.

I'm going to have to sit on the fence on this one.  I think there's better stuff to focus on...hello Congress?  You listening?



PS. This was reported around April 1st so I thought it was a joke.  Then I got the above IRS link in my email.  Bizarre.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England
Why do you think I've been so opposed to any federally funded health insurance programs? It just gives them another excuse to attempt to control individual behavior and force them to conform to whatever they feel is healthy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Lucien
Fantasma Parastasie
+1,451|6938
Racist towards gay people and women?

"don't you have something better to do, congress?"?

for fuck's sake D&ST
https://i.imgur.com/HTmoH.jpg
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6827|Texas - Bigger than France

Lucien wrote:

Racist towards gay people and women?

"don't you have something better to do, congress?"?

for fuck's sake D&ST
Sorry, to restate:

don't you have something better to do then worry about tanning beds, congress?
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|7006|Sydney, Australia

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why do you think I've been so opposed to any federally funded health insurance programs? It just gives them another excuse to attempt to control individual behavior and force them to conform to whatever they feel is healthy.
Yeah, but.. they are in no way healthy.. and the only benefit I can imagine they give is to make those said white women less pasty looking. Tanning beds don't really win on the cost/benefit argument.


But I do get the point you are making..
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

mcminty wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why do you think I've been so opposed to any federally funded health insurance programs? It just gives them another excuse to attempt to control individual behavior and force them to conform to whatever they feel is healthy.
Yeah, but.. they are in no way healthy.. and the only benefit I can imagine they give is to make those said white women less pasty looking. Tanning beds don't really win on the cost/benefit argument.


But I do get the point you are making..
It's their own body and their own money. I don't see why it should be anyone elses business, least of all some busybodies in Washington, ya know?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|7006|Sydney, Australia

JohnG@lt wrote:

mcminty wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why do you think I've been so opposed to any federally funded health insurance programs? It just gives them another excuse to attempt to control individual behavior and force them to conform to whatever they feel is healthy.
Yeah, but.. they are in no way healthy.. and the only benefit I can imagine they give is to make those said white women less pasty looking. Tanning beds don't really win on the cost/benefit argument.


But I do get the point you are making..
It's their own body and their own money. I don't see why it should be anyone elses business, least of all some busybodies in Washington, ya know?
Yeah, but given that tanning is likely to increase the incidence of skin cancer, the cost of the resulting healthcare is typically borne by society.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

mcminty wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

mcminty wrote:


Yeah, but.. they are in no way healthy.. and the only benefit I can imagine they give is to make those said white women less pasty looking. Tanning beds don't really win on the cost/benefit argument.


But I do get the point you are making..
It's their own body and their own money. I don't see why it should be anyone elses business, least of all some busybodies in Washington, ya know?
Yeah, but given that tanning is likely to increase the incidence of skin cancer, the cost of the resulting healthcare is typically borne by society.
No, it would be borne by their health insurance. Or, you could do without insur... oh wait.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6917|949

JohnG@lt wrote:

mcminty wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


It's their own body and their own money. I don't see why it should be anyone elses business, least of all some busybodies in Washington, ya know?
Yeah, but given that tanning is likely to increase the incidence of skin cancer, the cost of the resulting healthcare is typically borne by society.
No, it would be borne by their health insurance. Or, you could do without insur... oh wait.
Or if they didn't have insurance it could be a burden on society.  Not everyone has insurance.  Do you?
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6760|Foothills of S. Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

mcminty wrote:


Yeah, but given that tanning is likely to increase the incidence of skin cancer, the cost of the resulting healthcare is typically borne by society.
No, it would be borne by their health insurance. Or, you could do without insur... oh wait.
Or if they didn't have insurance it could be a burden on society.  Not everyone has insurance.  Do you?
So maybe tanning bed users should have to show proof of insurance before using a cancer causing light bed. 

On a slightly more serious note, when are they going to tax sun bathing?
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6753
10% is too low.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

mcminty wrote:


Yeah, but given that tanning is likely to increase the incidence of skin cancer, the cost of the resulting healthcare is typically borne by society.
No, it would be borne by their health insurance. Or, you could do without insur... oh wait.
Or if they didn't have insurance it could be a burden on society.  Not everyone has insurance.  Do you?
I do. If they can't afford health insurance, I doubt they have the money to visit a tanning salon. If they do, they need to be off public assistance or need to get their priorities straight.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|7006|Sydney, Australia

JohnG@lt wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


No, it would be borne by their health insurance. Or, you could do without insur... oh wait.
Or if they didn't have insurance it could be a burden on society.  Not everyone has insurance.  Do you?
I do. If they can't afford health insurance, I doubt they have the money to visit a tanning salon. If they do, they need to be off public assistance or need to get their priorities straight.
Well that's if people were rational. But of course they aren't
13rin
Member
+977|6764
So let big brother raise you?  No thanks.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6917|949

Is this the government trying to tell you what is healthy or is this the government trying to find ways to get more money?  They don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Is this the government trying to tell you what is healthy or is this the government trying to find ways to get more money?  They don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand.
They've discovered via things like cigarette and liquor taxes that they can get away with taxing things that people consider bad for your health. There's less righteous indignation, especially since they are picking on a helpless minority that would get laughed at if it made a stink.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6917|949

Vice taxes are nothing new, for sure.  I just don't really see how this is big brother infringing on your rights though as much as government trying to find new revenue streams.
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|6882|Seattle

So what's a tan cost? $10? so that's like 10 cents, rite?

meh.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Vice taxes are nothing new, for sure.  I just don't really see how this is big brother infringing on your rights though as much as government trying to find new revenue streams.
Because in most cases, the bill is written and sold in such a way as to coerce the people the tax hits into changing their lifestyle. Sure, the real intent is to siphon as much money as they can with the smallest amount of complaint, but as sold, it's coercion. New York City would probably go bankrupt if all the smokers quit. They sell the tax as a way to get people to quit but it's nothing more than a revenue grab with a captive audience. Hell, Bloomberg has quite publicly chased after people avoiding the tax, even going so far as to harass, with the intent to put out of business, Native American smoke shops on the east end of Long Island. They're absolutely desperate for every last cent of tax revenue. Hell, the tax on my smokes went up almost a full dollar in the past six months. I'm at the point where I will in fact quit because of the price, not because I necessarily want to.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-11 17:30:19)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

King_County_Downy wrote:

So what's a tan cost? $10? so that's like 10 cents, rite?

meh.
It would be a dollar.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
13rin
Member
+977|6764

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Is this the government trying to tell you what is healthy or is this the government trying to find ways to get more money?  They don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand.
It's a cash grab & a health regulation.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-06-11 17:55:39)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6782

why the FUCK would gov't look for money streams? they DAM the river, the little touch i get is not unmolested by

property tax
sales tax
income tax
state income tax
luxury tax
etc . . .

FUCK imma adopt a goldfish and name it "writeoff"
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6917|949

JohnG@lt wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Vice taxes are nothing new, for sure.  I just don't really see how this is big brother infringing on your rights though as much as government trying to find new revenue streams.
Because in most cases, the bill is written and sold in such a way as to coerce the people the tax hits into changing their lifestyle. Sure, the real intent is to siphon as much money as they can with the smallest amount of complaint, but as sold, it's coercion. New York City would probably go bankrupt if all the smokers quit. They sell the tax as a way to get people to quit but it's nothing more than a revenue grab with a captive audience. Hell, Bloomberg has quite publicly chased after people avoiding the tax, even going so far as to harass, with the intent to put out of business, Native American smoke shops on the east end of Long Island. They're absolutely desperate for every last cent of tax revenue. Hell, the tax on my smokes went up almost a full dollar in the past six months. I'm at the point where I will in fact quit because of the price, not because I necessarily want to.
The smoking tax was shown to lower smoking rates in Canada.  At least I remember reading something to that effect about 10 years ago.  Intended or not, it can result in lower smoking rates, which does in fact lower the financial burden on the population.  I hold the same ideals as you as far as hands off government regarding private businesses.  However, I see it as an ideal that is impractical to implement in our society.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Is this the government trying to tell you what is healthy or is this the government trying to find ways to get more money?  They don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand.
It's a cash grab & a health regulation.
How is it a health regulation?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina
This law will ultimately result in probably less melanoma.

I support it, personally.  Besides, we have enough saddlebags walking around as it is.  It's fucking disgusting.

Of course, I know the real reason the GOP was against it...

https://unreasonablysafe.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/3c8d47d9952342734e.jpg

Reciprocity
Member
+721|6866|the dank(super) side of Oregon
now they just need to tax terrible food.  Way too many fat ass diabetics.  The conservative estimate is something like $1 in $10 healthcare dollars is spent keeping morbidly obese diabetics alive so they can continue to being disgusting human beings.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard