Monday, January 29, 2007

Allocated Sexual Benefit Tax

Dateline Athens, Georgia. We are outside the Kappa Alpha1 fraternity house. Federal agents from the Internal Revenue Service stormed the frat house early this morning, and have started exiting the building with what we assume to be fraternity members in handcuffs. Their crime: not reporting allocated sexual benefits.

Late last year, a Federal judge ruled that the IRS interpreted tax rules correctly by allocating benefits associated with sexual relations. For years, certain employers must allocate tips if the percentage of tips reported by employees falls below a required minimum percentage of gross sales. It is called Allocated Tips, and the IRS ensures that employees should report this income on their tax returns.

In a bold move, the IRS began to assert that unmarried people who engage in sexual relations derive a quantifiable benefit from the other person (and to the IRS, a quantifiable benefit seems like a taxable event). National Organization for Women (NOW) Executive Vice President Olga Vives successfully argued successfully that women do not derive any benefit from heterosexual sex, a believe that NOW has asserted for years. 2 To that end, women have been exempted from the new Allocated Sexual Benefit tax, though the IRS has appealed this ruling.

The IRS issued statements that it would target certain groups, believed to derive more benefit than other groups. College aged students, University professors, and Hugh Hefner seemed to be part of the initial targeted audits.

The IRS also is investigating the possibility of assigning Sexual Favor income to women who have sexual relations with dates before the sixth date. And if sexual favors are not reported on SF Form 110, then as a penalty, the price of the meal cannot be deducted from said income. Many women argue that inane chatter should be taken into consideration, akin to assigning hazardous duty pay, a form of non-taxable income. A final determination on this point is forthcoming.

The IRS was unavailable for comment. They were putting together a plan to put the squeeze on lemonade stands and car washes. Cha-ching.


1 I really don't know if there is such a fraternity. I was just using KA because it means "kick ass." I suspect with all of the fraternity/sorority alphabet soup, there may be a KA. My guess is that the fraternity is full of nice wholesome guys who would wait to have sex until they were married.

2 I do not share NOW's view on women deriving no sexual benefit from sex, but if it means paying more money on taxes, I will go along with their arguments.

12 comments:

Shadowdog said...

LMAO!! Okay, Friday might have been a fluke so I was holding out ... but this seals it! (adds to favorites)

I don't think they've carried this far enough. Guys think about sex once per minute, so they should be able to deduct those 1,440 incidents per day as unproductive time.

Ian Lidster said...

My heartfelt feelings of sympathy go to the sad soul who will have nothing to declare. In other words, he'll have to make a public declaration that he never did 'get lucky.'

Ian

Prata said...

Pwnt.

Right on. I giggled outwardly at this.

KYCM said...

I deserve a refund for lack of use or possibly fraudulent behavior tax. For this little thing trying to act like a full fledged male part. Someday when he gets big he wants to be a real one...until then, he's availbable for pretty women to use free of charge. (They actually have to have been born a woman)You for sure get freebies Leesa...mmmmmmmmm

Happy Monday Pretty Lady!
KYCM

Pyth0s said...

Oh dear.

That would give me even more reason to be proud about being a Canadian!

I'm sexually satisfied and I ain't taxed for it!

kathi said...

Okay, I wouldn't be taxed for 3/4's of 2006. Oh, wait...unless I could be taxed for 'self-employment'...but then would I be the one paying the tax or receiving the tax benefit?
I've really got to think about dating soon.

Edge said...

I thought it was form SF 69.

~Jef

Joe said...

Well done, Leesa. The sad part is that there are likely some folks at the IRS who will read this and look to implement.

Leesa said...

shadowdog: thanks for adding me.

ian: I did not think of it that way.

prata: glad to see I amused you.

kycm: er, too much information.

pyth0s: darned loonie-carrying Canadian.

kathi: sorry, babe.

edge: no, not SF 69 - see, that form number would make sense and thus the IRS would not choose this form number.

joe: I did not think of that, joe. That's why you are the manager, and I am just the typist.

~ Amanda X&O said...

self employment... lmao!!

Leesa said...

amanda: thanks, sweetie.

Anonymous said...

yes, there is a KA fraternity (Kappa Alpha Order).