Ruling awaited
We’ve all heard about those new FTC rules for bloggers, but one serious question remains:
If a publisher sends me a crappy book, is it negative compensation and therefore deductible? I anxiously await the IRS ruling on this, but if [it] is deductible, then I would fully support these new guidelines.
Based on the demonstrable truth of the axiom “What has been seen cannot be unseen,” I think they’d have no choice but to allow you the deduction.
The Local Malcontent »
6 October 2009 · 7:16 pm
Wowie, you are surely gonna pay handsomely for all those high heel shoe endorsements.
CGHill »
6 October 2009 · 8:03 pm
What are they gonna do? Send the Manolo Patrol? I don’t get anything for writing that stuff.
Dick Stanley »
6 October 2009 · 10:38 pm
Heh, I forgot about the shoes. You could be in deep do-do. Books are small change compared to those shoes.
Somehow I doubt that this new Obamalot wrinkle has any upside in it for us. Unless we take it as a warning to watch our political/media swipes from now on.
CGHill »
7 October 2009 · 6:58 am
I don’t see a problem, since I’m not actually being sent samples of the shoes.
Anyway, my idea of upside is having this principle extended to Congress: when the guy votes, he must list everyone with an interest in the bill who gave him money. This would slow down the proceedings so much that we’d actually get some breathing space down here in the old Teeming Milieu.
Dick Stanley »
7 October 2009 · 7:32 am
Well, the FTC probably is too stupid to realize you are not getting samples and may come calling anyhow.
CGHill »
7 October 2009 · 7:38 am
That should end well. And I have, I think, just enough of a gift for publicity to make sure it does.
Dick Stanley »
7 October 2009 · 9:10 am
There is that. Indeed, I rather like the prospects of free legal representation here.