Guns and the IRS.

[WoofersInc]

Was having an conversation at a friend's party over the weekend concerning guns and the upcoming elections, and something was raised that started me thinking.

Hypothetical case here. Say Obama wins in November and gets his wish and is able to ban guns. In my case I have just lost a very large amount of firearms and their associated value. In this case can the pre-ban value of the collection be written off on my taxes as a finacial loss?
Further on this is the fact if the loss can be written off maybe this might be a way to get to the government over a complete ban. Think about it. There are over 80 million guns in the US. If all of those get written off, the associated cost to the government would be huge. And one thing that Congress doesn't like is being told they have less of our money to play with.

Like I said, hypothetical. But I have had this floating in my head for some reason. Thoughts?

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I think if they banned them all the financial implications would be the least of their worries.
If they became contraband they'd have to be confiscated or turned in and I doubt you could write them off. AFAIK Katrina victims didn't get compensated for theirs.

 

[wideym]

The IRS would most likely only give you $100 per gun no matter what the value, IF, they would let you write them off at tax time.

Do you really think Congress would blink at a 800 million dollar price tag? 8 billion or even 80 billion? It's just numbers on paper to them.

 

[Cosmoline]

You're getting way ahead of yourself. But if McBama or O'Cain get in and somehow ban a bunch of firearms without a grandfather clause, there'd be an argument that this constitutes a taking under the 5th. It would then be a matter of asserting a claim against the feds for the value. If the feds failed to pay or paid only a fraction of total value, there might be a way to claim that as a loss, but I doubt it. That would be the least of our concerns, though. To put it mildly.

In any event I wouldn't expect this to happen. Even the AWB avoided the problem with a grandfather clause, which is what I would expect to see on any future versions. IIRC the last federal law without a grandfather clause was FDR's big ban in 34, and that still had some provisions for registering old thompsons, auto-burglars and the like.

 

[TexasRifleman]

That would be the least of our concerns, though. To put it mildly.

Yep. The next Pres comes in and begins suspending random Bill of Rights clauses, tax issues will not make the worry list.

 

[Gottahaveone]

If all of those get written off, the associated cost to the government would be huge. And one thing that Congress doesn't like is being told they have less of our money to play with.

Sadly, you are applying logic to gov't decisions. There is absolutely no way that congress would allow something as simple as fairness to gun owners to stop them on this. You shouldn't have owned all those awful gun's in the first place, so if you could afford to purchase them you can certainly afford to take the loss for the benefit of your fellow citizen's "safety".

 

[Thernlund]

A "tax write-off" is just a way of exempting some income from being taxed for this of that reason. Deducting the value of my firearms from my taxable income doesn't directly pay me back for the loss like insurance would.

They'd have to do more than allow a tax deduction. They'd have to actually reimburse you for their value. That doesn't just reduce the income the gov't makes on taxes. It actually costs real money, as in "out of pocket".


-T.

 

[WoofersInc]

You're getting way ahead of yourself.

Like I said. This is just a hypothetical situation. I'm not planning on this actually happening. It is something that for some reason got in my head and I just wanted to see how it played out.

 

[elkhuntingfool]

Good luck writing off a personal loss on a collection. Usually those types of losses are for businesses. My employer would frown and chuckle if you tried to write that one off

 

[SFvet]

Thats why they pay the attorneys the big bucks hehe. My attorney would have a field day.

 

[TallPine]

I'd be more concerned about the cost of the ammo that I was going to be expending

 

[M1911]

Hypothetical case here. Say Obama wins in November

That may well happen.

and gets his wish and is able to ban guns.

That won't happen. Not a chance.

In my case I have just lost a very large amount of firearms and their associated value.

Your assumption is that the government could ban your guns without providing you compensation. That won't make it past the SCOTUS. That is why past bans have grandfathered existing guns -- if they didn't grandfather them, it would be a taking and the government would have to give fair compensation. They didn't want to spend the money to do that, so they grandfathered instead.

 

[One of Many]

Itemize your deductions, and declare them as a casualty or theft loss. You would lose some of the lost value in the initial deduction, and in meeting the threshold level, but the Fair Market Value at the time of the loss (prior to confiscation) should be the value declared on the loss.

Real Property that is condemned by the government receives favorable tax treatment, so there should be no reason to believe that condemned firearms would not also receive a favorable tax treatment.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Kind of hard to give any kind of legal opinion when the whole basis of the hypothesis is that the government is no longer obeying the law.

 

[WoofersInc]

Kind of hard to give any kind of legal opinion when the whole basis of the hypothesis is that the government is no longer obeying the law.

considering what is currently happening in DC there is that potential. Politicians have been known to put themselves above the law more than once in the past.

 

[Leanwolf]

WOOFERSINC - "... Think about it. There are over 80 million guns in the US."

Slight correction, Woofers. There are over 220,000,000 firearms in the United States, with +/- a million or so, 80,000,000 gunowners.

FWIW.

L.W.

 

[Ed4032]

It is not the appreciated value that is your basis. Rather what you paid would be your basis.

 

[Picard]

If this were to happen, I would not be worrying about the dollar value of my guns. Guns would be invaluable in the fight that would ensue for the restoration of the Constitution.

There is no way in heck that I would turn mine in freely.

 

[ants]

Obama wins in November and gets his wish...

They don't simply grant wishes to the winner of an election. Federal gun control laws still have to go through Congress, get signed by the President, and survive judicial challenges. A president can't do it by simple decree.

 

[Zundfolge]

This discussion is kind of pointless because it doesn't take into account how government works.

The way guns will be outlawed in the US (assuming it happens) won't look like this: One day guns are perfectly legal, the next they're all contraband.

No, it will be incremental.

Fastest track would look something like this:

• One day guns are perfectly legal.
• The next day they're still legal except that you aren't allowed to buy, sell or otherwise transfer guns from person to person without special permission from the government (either a license for each individual sale, or all sales must go through an FFL).
• Soon after the process to get this permission is either defunded or some other means is set up to make it impossible for people to legally transfer guns from individual to individual and the ATF shuts down the FFL system (no new FFLs).
• Then government waits for a generation or two to pass and THEN they outright ban possession of guns (since there will be almost no legal guns in possession by the people anyway).

Of course during this time, there will be mechanisms in place for you to "turn in" firearms (like when grandpa dies). Whether there will be any compensation or not, I don't know.


That's the FASTEST they'll do it ... more likely they'll continue on the path they're on now, which is to ban guns by type (.50BMG, "Assault" weapons, non "smart" guns, etc). And more restrictions on ammunition (first end reloading, then limit how much ammo you can keep on hand for "fire safety", then keep increasing taxes on ammo until it costs more to shoot a .22 than to own a Ferrari).

Doing it incrementally keeps them from having to pay for all the guns at once.



Actually I foresee another scenario.

They give up on banning guns, but because of technology they eventually develop weapons systems and surveillance systems that are so powerful that guns are no longer a threat to their power. We keep our guns but we're still slaves to the state.