• Aneb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Hell yes this what the Internal Revenue Service is for. Micro managing people trying to sell images of their bodies and not the Billionaires selling images of other’s bodies, marketing and stuff. Let’s use are resources to investigate the rain drop and not the fucking hurricane good job agents! /s

  • kyonshi@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    That might take some time. And a lot of agents. To… you know… review footage. A few times a day maybe.

  • pheonixdown@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Having never used OF, I assumed it was a pay to access content model, I guess they additionally allow tipping, which isn’t a surprise, I assume there’s also a pay for specific content creation model. But what I don’t know is if the tipping, while linked to a creator, is linked to a specific piece of content. If it isn’t, wouldn’t a creator with any amount of mixed content be hard to evaluate? You couldn’t prove the tipping was related to an excluded category in that case.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Almost like the “Big Beautiful Bill’s” language wasn’t very well thought out.

      I mean, why exclude this random subsection of work in the first place.

    • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      OnlyFans has steadfastly maintained that it is not explicitly a pornographic site. I imagine if a ruling went out that every tipped interaction on the site was considered pornography, they would step in on behalf of the content creators to try to whittle that down to case-by-case rulings, for no other reason than PR alone.

      Tipping into the silly now…

      I can’t wait until someone issues a FOIA for the deliberations over whether certain things are pornographic or not.

  • huquad@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Yeah boss, I’m gonna need to expense these tissues and this gallon of lotion.

    • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      21 hours ago

      2nd paragraph:

      The issue … is the interpretation of a restriction on the “no tax on tips” deduction passed as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act that says that tips earned for prostitution or “pornographic activity” are not eligible.

      The 3rd paragraph goes on to explain:

      The legislation didn’t offer much additional guidance, and the IRS has yet to issue any statements clarifying what exactly constitutes “pornographic activity,” leaving the taxing agency in a similar boat as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when he endeavored to define “obscenity” in the 1964 case of Jacobellis v. Ohio: “I know it when I see it.”

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Next headline: “IRS Agents receive scrutiny for buying an excess of facial tissues.”

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I bet the boss of those agents will be all too happy to walk back and forth between cubicles. You know, for moral support