Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary
I'm no lawyer, and I truely hope that the tax credit is no longer limited to one's own owed taxes. But the term "the credit which would be allowed to such taxpayer" sounds to me like the credit that "would be allowed" if that taxpayer didn't choose to have it applied to the point-of-sale. In other words, if the tax payer "would be allowed" only $500 of that tax credit because at the end of the year he only owes $500 in taxes, then it sounds to me like that's the amount that "shall be allowed to the eligible
entity."
|
This is an example of why our tax code, and most law, is either profoundly dumb, or profoundly corrupt.
What you describe is the difference between what is considered a "refundable" tax credit, and "non-refundable". Refundable credits pay out cash if you don't have enough tax liability. Non-refundable does not. To complicate things even further, some tax credits "carry-over", meaning if you don't have the full tax liability in a single year, the remainder of the credit carries over to the next year (up to the duration of the carry over).
I'm not usually the "burn it to the ground" type, but our idiotic tax law easily fits the criteria of needing to be sent to the woodchipper. There's no way that's happening though, because both political parties can take advantage of us dullards towards their elitist ends.