top 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 33 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    The large drums of lotion however didn't raise any suspicion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 11 months ago
    [–] 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    How do I apply to the IRS? HOW DO I APPLY TO THE IRS?!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    Wild to see my hard-earned tax money's going to people who are paid to watch porn.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 11 months 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

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    For some professional reason, though, right? Uh, just because!

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    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.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago

    Sweet gig if you can get it.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    Hell, I'll do this for free.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

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

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/fark@ibbit.at view that post
    [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    This country is so fucking stupid.

  • source